
0^\ 

7/ \V'v 






Cr^v*^ 




Qass 

Book .CiS_E 



'Mm flrfltiiiitf mt 



ON THE 



OF THE k/'i, -'• 

KOnr. JOKBT C. CALKOVIV, 



Titt Jlttfisftrtnt af tfie mnitttf States, 



AND 



PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. 



BY F'^T'MICK HEJ^MY, 



[ORIOINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE NATIONAL JOURNAL. I 




WASHINGTON : 



PRINTRD BY fET^R FORCE, CORNER OF ELEVENTH 6TREKT, AXr 
FENWSyLVANIA AVENUE, 



f J, 



r ^.y ^ ^^ 



THE VICZi PRESIDENT. 



o 



X,' LETTER I. 

I [Prom the J^ationalJournal, Monday, May Ist, 1826.] 

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NATIOMAL JOURHAI,. 

Sir, 

In the National Intelligencer of the 24th inst. another 
cff>rt is made, in a communication signed a " Western Sena- 
tor," to exculpate the Vice President of the United States 
from the ciiarge of partiality in the exercise of his duties as 
President of the Senate. The testimony in favor of this offi- 
cer thus given, is announced as an offering at the shrine of 
justice, by a witness, who is " neither the personal raor par- 
ticular friend of Mr. Calhoun." There may be reasons why 
the soi disant •* Western Senator" is the " particular" without 
being the '^ personal" friend of a political aspirant; but he 
seems clearly to be one of those friends whom the Spanish 
proverb proscribes, since his defence is directly at war with a 
previous and solemn declaration of the Vice President him- 
self. The defence admits, that the Vice President did, of his 
own volition, call Mr. Dickerson to order: The Vice-Presi- 
dent, in his Address of the 1 5th inst., avers that his " most de« 
" liberate and anxious attention, by night and by day, on the 
" question of the extent of his powers, under a correct construc- 
" tion of the Gth and 7th rules of the Senate, had settled in 
" the conviction, that the right to call to order ^ on questions 
" touching the latitude ot freedom of debate, belongs exclusively 
" to the members of" the Senate, and not to the Chair. If Mr, 
Dickerson's attempt to speak, on a motion which, by the rules 
of the Senate, precluded debate, did not present a question 
♦' touching the latitude or freedom of debate," it is ditiici'lt 
for a case to be imagined in which such a question can arise. 
And so the original power of calling to order, which " delibe- 
rate and anxious attention by night and by day" had induced 
the Vice President to disclaim, his champion admits him, i» a 
conspicuous instance, to have exercised. It is observable, 
moreover, that the Vice-President's Address advances no rea- 
son against his original right to call to order, in " questions 

2 



[6] 

" touching; the latitude or freedom of debate," which is not 
equally applicaljle to every other possible question of order. 

Ill tile Chair of President of the Senate, Mr. Calhoun has, 
indi'eil, very rarely volunteered a call to order ; for " ques- 
'' tions touchinii; the latitude or freedom of debate" have not 
been presented from a quiuter to which inclination prompted 
him to direct such an t.-xercise of his power ; while, on the 
other hand, his disappointment found consolation, and his }et 
thirsty ambition encouragement, in the declamations of every 
enemy to the Government. When, however, in a striking and 
m<>uniful instance, tlu^ national money, time, and character, 
had been prostituted, for hour after hour, day after day, week 
after week, and almost month after month, to the irrelative 
rhapsodies of a once powerful mind ; rhapsodies which, if 
ever tiiey a^)proached the subject of discussion, did so, like 
the conic a>ymptotes, without ever touching it; — rhapsodies 
which were not only really, hut avowedly, the offspring of 
systematic hostility to men, without reference to m.easures ; 
rhapsodies which, though sometimes illumined by a lingering 
ray of u( nius, were oltener in a style of gross reviling, dis- 
creditable to him who uttered, and more discreditable to him 
who permitted thetn : When a spectacle thus humiliating to 
the American name, had been exhibited before the American 
Senate, without one elfort of authority, or one hint of disap- 
probation, from its President, the rising murmurs of public 
indignation reminded him that some excuse was necessary, 
for having sacrificed the proprieties of office to the sympathies 
of a desperate ambilion. 

After his partisans had displayed much newspaper chivalry 
in his behalf, his own mind " bestowed its most deliberate 
" and anxious attention, by night and by day," — not on the ex- 
tent of his power in preserving order ; a question on which 
any school boy who could read, or any man of plain common 
sense who could not read, might have informed him ; — but on 
devising some mode of palliating a flagrant official non-fea- 
sance. The result of th'se daily and nocturnal meditations, 
is his Address, on the 15th inst., to the Senate; — a document 
which merits a high place in a museum of logical curiosities. 
Its cardinal proposition is, that ^n officer, of whose existence 
the power to preserve order in the body which he presides 
over is the vital blood, has no power to do so, which this body 
does not expressly, and in terms, confer. The inevitable co- 
rollary to this proposition is, that if the body omitted to con- 
fer such power, it might, so far as would depend on the pre- 
siding ofllcer, be a scene of uncontrolled confusion and an- 
archy. With one of those bold and reckless bounds which 
formerly characterized Mr. Calhoun as a reasoner, he plunges 



[7] 

on the 6th and 7th rules of the Senate, as tlie sole foundation 
of his otlioial authority. TIh*}' are a< follows viz. '' VVIk-u a 
" meinher shall bv. called to order, he shall sit diwn, iinlil tiic 
" President shall have determined whether he is in order or 
'•not; and every question of order ghail be decided by ihe 
" President without debate ; but if there be a doubt in iiis 
" mind, he may call tor the sense of the Senate." 

" If the member be called to order, for woids spoken, the 
" exceptionable words shall be immediately taken down, in 
" writing, that the President may be better enabled to judge 
" of the matter." 

Now, sir. every man whose faculties have not been strained 
in the "exercise" of party discipline, must consider these 
rules as providing for tlie case only, where one Senator thinks 
proper to call another to order. In such a state of thin}:?, the 
rules require the interrupted member " to sit down until the 
" President shall have determined whether he is in order cr 
" not;" and when the call is made for " words spoken," the 
words to " be taken down in writing, that the Presid/^t may 
" be better enabled to judge of the matter." 

These rules are, manifestly, a shield to protecl the dignity 
of the Senate from the indecorum of unchecked calls to order, 
recriminations, and discussions on the floor. They can, by 
no decent argument, be tortured into a docliine denying to 
the presiding officer of a deliberate assembly, the power to 
preserve order: a power which is as much a |)art of his office, 
as the power of deciding a cause is a part of the office of a 
judge. Is there any intelligible principle which can subject 
these rules to an operation that would entitle one Senator 
to commit disorder utitil checked by another, and thus reduce 
the very officer who is the appointed guardian of decorum in 
the Hall, to the degradation of a useless autotvi.iton ? The 
plain English of the doctrine of order, in any deliiieral ve body, 
is, that a power in the presiding officer of such a body, to pre- 
serve order, is conferred by the single fact of his appoint- 
ment : That the right to call to order is the necessary conse- 
quence ot this powtr : And that unless sucli a body, acting 
within the sphtre of its competence, expressly restricts this 
power and this right, no restriction on them can be supposed. 
The rules now under consideration, are special re g'liations, 
adapted to given cases, but leaving the general, original right 
of the chair to call to order, untouched, and resting, where it 
should rest, on common sense and on usage. 

In assuming the strange postulate, that the power of the 
chair to call to order, on ''questions touching the latitude or 
^''freedom of debate," is appellati only, Mr. Calhoun seems 
aware, that he invites a charge of extravagance, and attempts 



[8] 

to parry it by an are;umf nt, appropriate to his ex-officio con- 
nexion as ^'ic^• l*resident of llic United States, with the Sen- 
ale. The t.h^hte8t examinalion of the duties incident to this 
connexion, will show, that the argument is, if possible, more 
un(<Miablo than the postulate. 

'J'he President of the Senate whom the Constitution con- 
templates, is the Vice President of the United States ; and it 
is in certain contingencies only, that the Senate can elect its 
p; >ii!ing officer. The powers, then of the Constitutional 
ent of the Senate, furnish the criterion of the powers of 
Jiviijual, who in the happening of any of these contin- 
s, may be its elected President. Yet Mr. Calhoun, 
nore th^. i ,-;holastic absurdity, derives from the pre-ex- 
he Senate, of a President whom it may pos- 
;terion for determining, and a reason for 
; vers of its Constitutional President, who has 

c o it. 

1 y hijatee of General Jackson's pretensions 

'- . Mr. Calhoun, in his memorable Address, 

i' t artifice, which each of them had often em- 

' (' fying his own cause with the cause of the 

l< /ice President said, he prided himself on his 

n ■ the Senate : but it was impossible that he 

u lat that connection was created by the ope- 

•ii.,io mstitution. In discharging his duty in this 

"seat, '. ur)pardonable in him not to recollect, that 

" he w 1 the chair, not by the voice of the Senate, 

" b>Jt t le People, and that to them, and not to this 

'^Dody imalely responsible." 

This ediysuund doctrine. But it is here pressed 

into a f I which it must soon de=ert. It is a distinct- 

ive be; republican system, that as the People dele- 

gate to ts no superfluous power, every power whic]i 

they d' plies a duty to be discharged. The Vice- 

Pi esid< Senate are both the creatures of the People, 

exercis -pective powers delegated to each by the 

People 'he poweis thus accpiired by the Vice Presi- 

dent, i over the Senate, and, by consequence, to 

pres<-rve ord' r mercin. How has Mr. Calhoun discharged 
the duties iiist^.parable from this power? Ih) ri'fnsing to exer- 
cise ?7, without an invitation fro'/i some ine'inber of the Senate! 
Ill others words, one of (he servarits of the Peoplei^renders that 
hi>m«ge to a .otiier servant of the People, which he denies to 
the l^eople thernselves. One agent respects a co-ordinate 
BL'eiil. and di-regards the sovereign who constituted them 
b"th. II(? obeyi? the depositary of a delegated power, and 
dksubeys the paramount authoritv which is the source of that 



[ 9] 

power ! And yet, " the honourable gentleman bows to thfc 

" majesty of the People !" 

The inconsistent and extraordinary doctrine behind which 
Mr. Calhoun has sought to entrench himself, ie not only un- 
founded in its principle, and weak in its argument, but is re- 
pugnant t© all accredited usage. No precedent for it was 
furnished by any of the former Vice-Presidents of (he United 
States. Of these, even Aaron Burr has left, in the firm and 
impartial discharge of his duties as President of the Senate, 
an example to his successors, more worthy, though, perhaps, 
more difficult of imitation, than his inconstant, experimenting, 
and reckless ambition. 

PATRICK HENRY. 



LETTER IL 

IFrom the National Journal, Wednesdar/, June 7//t, 1826.} 

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NATIONAL JOVRNAt. 

Sir, 

If the public have truly conjectured the writer of 
" Onslow," his authority may, with a few readers, carry a 
weight which none can ascribe to his arguments. I certainly 
would not withhold the compliment of a reply from any thing 
which a fortnight's deliberation, perhaps " by night and by 
day," had determined the anxious Vice President to publish ; 
nor would I refuse that courtesy to Onslow, though he were 
" some man at arms," skilful in the tactics of retreat, who, 
on the eve of flying to the bosom of his constituents, discharges 
an arrow at his enemy. 

Onslow begins his "able virdication of the freedom of de- 
" bate," by stating that " the point at issue is, whether the Vice- 
" President has a right to call a Senator to order for words spo- 
" ken in debate.'''' This is a point which he may conceive him- 
self to be capable of discussing; but in describing it as the 
ground of the present controversy, he only illustrates his 
adroitness in using the '' suppressio reri;" — a tigure of rhetoric 
which, however necessary in the political school that he be- 
longs to, both moralists and lawyers have supposed to be ia 
close alliance with the '''• suggeslio falsi^ The doctrine an- 
nounced in the Vice President's Address, of April 15th, to the 
Senate, is, that the power of the chair to call to order on 
"questions touching the latitude or freedom of debate," is ap- 
pellate only j a doctrine which he at first and very slightly 
endeavoured to sustain by arguments suitable to any Presi* 



[10] 

dent, whether ex-ofticio, or elected, of the Senate, and thea 
by arguments appropriate to an officer of the former descrip- 
tion. Against this doctrine and its author, I contended that 
the President of ihe Senate, whether chosen by that body 
or by the People at large, derives from the single fact 
of his appointment the origmal right of calling to order; that 
this right is more conspicuous in the case of an officer sent by 
the People to preside over the Senate, than in the case of a 
President whom the Senate might elect ; that the present 
Vice-President had urged no reason against hisi original 
right to call to order on " questions touching the latitude or 
freedom of debate," which was not equally applicable to every 
other possible question of order ; that his theory and his 
practice had not accorded with each other; that cases had 
arisen in which he ought to have exercised his original right 
of calling to order, and omitted to exercise it; and. finily, 
that his omission resulted from culpable motives. That tiiese 
are the " points at issue," must appear to the most cursory 
reader of the Vice-President's Address, and of my former let- 
ter. 

In thus restoring to the controversy its proper subjects, I 
take no uncharitable pleasure in exposing the cunning or the 
clumsiness of an adversary ; still less do 1 feel any apprehen- 
sion of '* the point at issoe," as assumed by Onslow. But I 
am reluctant that the public should mistake for the true ques- 
tion any distorted representation of it, which the exigencies of 
a bad cause may induce its advocate to display. In inviting 
printers to republish Onslow's defence, Mr. Calhoun may ex- 
pect that it will gain by diffusion, what it wants in strength ; 
but while the American Ptopie are governed by the rules of 
common sense, this writer will scarcely find any thing in their 
opinions so consoling as the applause of the Telegraph. If, in- 
deed, any proposition could be submitted to the understanding 
which deserved its unhesitating assent, the right and the duty 
of an oflicer who presides over a deliberative assembly, to pro- 
tect its proceedings from disorder, would seem to be precisely 
such a proposition. It is a proposition so near to an axiom, 
that the mind not only pronounces in its favour with instinct- 
ive alacrity, and an unfaltering voice, but feels some ditlicul- 
ty in distinguishing between the absurdity of him who would 
voluntarily undertake to demonstrate, and that of him who 
ventures to deny it. Nothing however seems too bold for the 
effrontery of Onslow, nothing too subtle for his serpentine in- 
sinuation. With the easy assurance of a man who is stating 
a ronce<led postulate, he says, " after all, the power of the 
" Vice President must depend upon the rules and usages of 
" the Senate;" a postulate not only false in its principle, but 



til ] 

which, if true, would not sustain the cause to whose aid it i^ 
invoked. Unless the Constitution of the United States be, as 
an act of Congress was, subjected to some military construc- 
tion, the power of the Vice-President in presiding ovor the 
Senate rests on deeper, holier foundations, than any rules or 
usages which that body may adopt. What says this Constitu- 
tion? "The Vice President of the United States shall be 
" President of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they 
*' be equally divided." " The Senate shall choose their own 
" officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of 
"the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of 
" President of the United States." (Const. U. S. Art. 1, 
Sec. 3.) It is here made the duty of the Vice-President to 
preside over the Senate, under the sole restriction of having 
no vote except in a given case ; the right of the Senate to 
choose their President, is contined to two contingencies; his 
powers, after being so chosen, are identical with those of the 
President set over them by the Constitution, and any abridge- 
ment of those powers by the Senate would be a palpable in- 
fraction of that Constitution. Now, Sir, what is the import of 
the term " to preside ^'''^ in relation to a deliberative assembly ? 
Can any sophistry devise a plausible definition of it which 
would exclude the power of preserving order ? In appointing 
an officer to preside over the Senate, the People surely in- 
tended, not to erect an empty pageant, but to accomplish some 
useful object: And when, in another part of the Constitution, 
they authorize each House " to determine the rules of its 
proceedings," they do not authorize it to adopt ruies depriv- 
ing any otiice created by the Constitution, of powers belong- 
ing, ex vi termini, to that office. If the plainest, or the most 
profound man in the community, were asked what powers he 
supposed to be inherent in the presiding officer of either House 
of Congress, he would instantly enumerate, first, the power of 
preserving order in its deliberations ; next, that of collecting 
the sense of its members on any question submitted to its 
decision ; and thirdly, that of authenticating by his signature, 
its legislative acts. I have before said, and I regret that I an* 
obliged to repeat a truism, that " the right to call to order is a 
" necessary consequence of the power of preserving order ;" 
and that " unless a deliberative body, acting within the sphere 
*' of its competence, expressly restrict this power and this right, 
" no restriction on them can be supposed." In devestmg (he 
President set over them by the People, of any power which 
he had received, either expre>;s1v or impliedly, from the Peo- 
ple, the Senate, instead of " acting zoithin the sphere of their 
^^ competence,^'' would act usurpiugly a^d uucoustitutionally ; 
they would nullify the connexion wtiich the People had es- 



[12 J 

tablishcd between themselves and their President ; they would 
reduce theruselves to the monstrous spectacle of a body with- 
out a head, and their President to the e(iuall} moiistrou- pec- 
tacle of a head without a body; and their violent act, while it 
would be disobeyed as illegal, would be contemned as ridicu- 
lous. But, in truth, the Senate have never thus forgotten 
their allegiance to the Constitution. 

The power of the Vice President does not then "depend 
upon the rules and usages of the Senate ;" and if it did, there 
is nothing in these rules and usagf^s, to justify the construction 
of that power, which he attempts to impose on an enlightened 
nation. The rules on which he professes to rely are. I have 
argued, "special regulations, adapted to given cases." and 
the municipal code of the Senate cannot be interpreted to 
deny to their President every power which it does not express- 
ly confer on him. In the Preface to the '' Manual of Parlia- 
mentary Practice" which Mr. Jefferson compiled for the ''-use 
*' of the Senale,^^ that great man says, •' The Senate have ac- 
" cordinjily formed some rules for its own government, but 
" these going only to few cases, they have referred to the de- 
*' cision of their President without debate, and without ap- 
" peal, all questions of order arising under their own rules, or 
" where they have provided none. This places under the 
"discretion of the President, a very extensive field of decision^ 
" and one whicn, irregularly exercised, would have a power- 
" ful etFect on the proceedings and determinations of the 
" House." It is observable that the rules of the Senate re- 
ferred to by Mr. Jetferson, are, according to Vlr. Calhoun, and 
his anonymous partisan, the sole foundation of the Vice Presi- 
dent's power in the Senate: Though Mr. Jefferson emphati- 
cally des<ribes them as "going onl^ to few cases ;" attributes 
to that officer a discretionary power, in the incalculably more 
numerous questions of order, for which these rules do not 
provide ; and in a subsequent part of the same Preface, con- 
siders the " law of proceedings in the Senate, as composed of 
*' the precepts of the Constitution, the regidations of the Senate, 
'^' and where these are silent, of the rides of Parliament.'''' It 
would indeed be strange, if Mr. Jetlerson had propounded 
any doctrine which refused to the Vice President a power im- 
plied in the nature of his oflice, and essential to the discharge 
ot its duties. But it is, doubtless, a subject of regret to that 
enligliicjiicd patriot, ili.i; uc li^s seen the "discretion" of a 
Vice President of the United States, &o irregularly exercised 
as to produce " a powerful etFect," of no pleasing kind, on the 
n-putalion of the Senate, and of the Republic. Now, Sir, 
wiiat are the rules of Parliami-nt on the subject of order ? In 
p. 55, 2d edition, of Mr. Jefferson'3 Manual, it is laid down aB 



[ '3] 

a Parliamentary rule, that no member is " to diuiot^s from the 
"matter to fall upon the person, Scot. 31. Hale's Purl. 133. 
" 2. Hats. 1G6, by speaking, reviling, nipping, or unmannerly 
^^ words, against a particular member, iimyih's Comw. L. 2, 
" c. 3. The consecjiiences of a measure nuiy be reprobated 
" in strong terms, but to arraign the motives of those who pro- 
" pose or advocate it, is i\ personality, and against ordir. Qui 
" digreditur a materia ad personam, ^ir. Speaker ought to sup- 
''press. Ord. Com. 1G04." In p. 59 60, it is held that '' It 
"is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been said 
" on the game subj(!ct in the other House, or the particular 
"votes, or majorities on it there; because the opinion of 
*' each House should be left to its own independency, not to 
" be influenced by the proceedings of the other ; and the 
"quoting them might beget reflections leading to a misunder- 
" standing between the two Houses. 8 Grey 22. Neither 
" House can exercise any authority over a member or olHcer 
"of the other, but should complain to the House of which he 
" is, and leave the punishment to them. Where the com- 
" plaint is of words disrespectfully spoken by a member of 
"another House, it is difficult to obtain punishnient, because 
" of the rules supposed necessary to be observed (as to the 
" immediate noting down of words) for the security of mem- 
" bers. Therefore it is the duty of the House, and more par- 
" ticularly of the Speaker, to interfere immediately, and not to 
''permit expressions to go unnoticed, which may give a ground 
" of complaint to the olher House, and introduce proceedings 
" and mutual accusations between the two Houses, which can 
" hardly be terminated without ditHculty and disorder. 3 
" Hats. 51. 

These rules are expressly stated by Mr. Jefferson as a part 
of " the law of proceedings in the Senate." Beside these, 
other rules of Parliament require the original interposition of 
the Speaker, and though not specitically cited by Mr. Jelfer- 
son, are, according to liis doctrine, a part of the '' law of pro- 
ceedings in the Senate." '* On the 14lh of April, 1004, rule 
" conceived, ' That, if any man speak impertinently, or beside 
" the question in hand, its stands with the orders of the House 
" for the Speaker to interrupt him ; and to shew the phasure 
"of the House, whether they will further hear him." " On 
"the 17(h of April, 1604, agreed for a general rule, if any 
^'superfluous motion or tedious speech be oilered in the House, 
*' the party is to be directed and ordered b> Mr. Speaker." 
" On the 19th of May, 1804,. Sir William Paddy entering into 
" a long speech, a rule agreed That, if any man speak not to 
" the matter in question, the Speaker if to moderate. So it is 
" said on the 2d of May, 1810, when a member made «;/?«/ stem- 

3 



[ 14] 

^' td an imptrlinent speech, and (here was much hissing and 
*' spitlint;, '' That it was conceived for a rule, that Mr. Speak- 
" er nuiy stay imptrt'incnt spreches.'^'' " On the 10th of Novem- 
" ber, lG40, it whs declared, Tiial when a business is begun, 
'^ and in debate, if aiiv m;in rise to speak to a new business. 
" any Member may, but Mr. Speaker ovghl /o, interrupt him." 
See Uatsell's Precedents, Vol. '2d, 3d Edition. 

I have here collated these particular rules, because some 
of them ar(.' ciled by Mr. .letFerson ; because all of them are, 
in his opinion, a pari of the " law of proceedings in the Sen- 
ate ;" because during the last session of that body, all of them 
were grossly violated by a certain Senator; and because all 
of them tlistinctly ;i(trilnite to the presiding officer the original 
right and duty olcalliMg to order. Unwilling to encumber a 
plain question with a long retinue of authorities, I forbear to 
■transcribe the nunierous Parliamentar} rules which, though 
not in terms requiring the Speaker to call to order, were al- 
ways under!«tood lo impose on him that obligation. Mr. Ons- 
low, who is styled by Mr. Jefferson, " (he ablest among the 
" Speakers of the House of Commons," was. we are told, es- 
pecially vigilant and streininus in enforcing them, by exercis- 
ing his orii;inal light of calling to order. But my adversary, 
having certainly forgotten, if mdeed he ever knew, the prac- 
tice «)f this eminent officer, probably assumed his name, " eu- 
'• phoniiE gratia." 

The foregoing illustrations show conclusively, that Mr. Jef- 
ferson's deliberate doctrines, on the subject of the Vice-Pre- 
sident's power in the Senate, so far frosn supporting, directly 
contradict, Mr. Calhoun's llieory. Not venturing to contend 
thill Mr, Jefferson's practice was contrariant to his princif les, 
Onslow, with chaiaeteristic disingenuousness, states, that this 
great man, in his valedictory address to (he Senate, March 2, 
1801, ^'- exoress/y designates, his power over (he debates of 
" the Senate as the umpirage of the Vice President." The 
passage containing this word is as follows, viz : " 1 owe it to 
*• truth and justice, at the same time to declare, that the habits 
" of order and decorum, which so strongl) cliarai:terize the 
" proceedings of the Senate, have rendered the umpirage of 
"their President an ofiice of little ditlicidly, that in tunes and 
"on questions which have severely tried the sensibilities of 
"the ilouse, calm and temperate discussion has raiely been 
"disturbed by dep:ulnre from order." If this illustration 
proved any thing, it would prove too much ; for if Mr. Jeffer- 
son here used the word " umpirage" in the narrow, technical 
Bense which is supposed, he must have intended that the 
powi-rofihe Presiihnt of the Senate, however aj>pointed, is 
in kvtry cuse^ appellate only ; whereas, Mr. Calhoyn, after 



[ 15] 

dislinguishing between the powers of an ex officio, and of an 
elected, President of that body, says, tirst, that the power of 
the former at least to call to order " in qnrslion?, touching tht 
" latitude or freedom of debnle,'''' is appellate only ; and then, in 
the true Guerilla spirit, shifts his ground, and says, " the point 
"at issue is whether the Vice-Prv'sident has the right to call to 
" order lor zvords spoken in debate.'''' I know not what farther 
juggles he may meditate ; but so far forth, he has never dis- 
tinctly announced the doctrine, however it is inferible from 
iiis arguments, that in no case the President of the Senate 
possesses the original right of calling to order. And yet this 
preposterous position is ascribed to Mr. JelFerson, in defiance 
of his audioritative publication, and of his illustrious fame. 
If he used the word "umpirage," to indicate an " appellate 
•«P',>wer," he contradicted both the spirit and the letter of his 
" Manual." But inconsistency is Mr. Calhoun's jt>ccw//n»j, and 
Mr. Jelfersou is the last man who would trespass on his rights. 
" After all," the cavil about the w^ord " umpirage" is lower 
than a freshman's logic. Technical words, m our language, 
lose, when introduced into popular speech, their primitive 
peculiarity of meaning, and must be interpreted in reference 
to the subject which they are applied to. On (ew words oi 
this sort has custom superinduced more significations than 
on " umpirage ;" as a reference to the best authors will clear- 
ly demonstrate. That Mr. J( tTerson used it in its ordinary 
acceptation, as synonymous with th^ ollice, authority, or act 
of determining, and not in its native technical sense, must he 
evident to every reader of the " Manual" who is not ready, in 
subserving the plots of a faction, to accuse of gross self con 
tradiction, a patriot and a philobopher. 

So much, sir, for the authority of the sage of Monticello on 
the question of the Parliamentary power of ih'i Vice Presi- 
dent. And yet he has been cited in support of Mr. Calhoun's 
doctrines! Who could be surprised then, if Mr. .IifFerson, his 
known opinions on that subject not withstanding, were sum- 
moned to vouch for this gentleman's political character? 

The rules of the Senate, and Mr. Jflferson's opinions, so 
far from containing any thing repugnant to their President's 
original, and except by the People, indefeisible right to (all 
to order, are, 1 have shown, in many instancr^s declaratoiy of 
that right. But an opposite conclusion is sought to be derived 
from a rule of the House of Representatives. This rule is, 
that " If any member, in speaking or otherwise, transgress 
•' the rules of the House, the Speaker shall, or anv member ?r/<7y, 
" call to order 5" and the inference extorted from it is, that 
because it expressly imposes on the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, the obligation in certain cases, of railing to 



[ 16 ] 

order, the nonexistence in the President of the Senate of the 
power to call to order, in certain other cases, must be implied. 
This, Sir, is surely the most whimsical of all logical phanta- 
sies. Because the House of Representatives have, in the 
plenitude of rogulalion, passed nearly one hundred rules for 
their e;overr)meiit, descending ofien to the minutest details of 
business, and one of them is not to be found in " some rules''^ 
formed by the Senate, and '■^ going only to few cases,'''' the ar- 
gument is, that however superfluous such a rule may be, and 
however incompetent the Senate may have been to form a 
contrary rule, they are bound to act as if they had formed 
that contrary rule I Instead of further noticing a deduction 
which certainly shows " at least as much spirit as judgment," 
I merely observe, that even this rule does not req'iire tl)e 
Speaker of the House of Representatives to call to order in 
any case, except for a transgression " of the rules of the House,'' 
and, therefore, on Mr. Calhoun's principles, whenever that 
otlicer calls a member to order for any other cause, (as it is 
his daily habit to do,) he is guilty of '• u^urpation." But Ons- 
low understands the doctrine of compensation, and having trust- 
ed to an authority which proves too much, here makes amends 
by quoting one which proves too little. In one material re- 
spect, indeed, it proves more than he expected, for, as the 
rule in que«ition, even in connexion with the other rules of 
the House of Representatives, does not confer all the power 
on the subject of order, which the Speaker of that House con- 
fessedly possesses and enforces, he has powers not arising 
from regulation ; a consequence closely analogous to my ar- 
gument on the powers of the President of the Senate. 

Distrusting (heir appeal to domestic or republican author- 
ity, Onslow and Mr. Calhoun next resort to the British House 
of Lords, and tell us of " Mr. Randolph's assertion," that the 
Lord Chancellor, who presides over that body, has never call- 
ed a member to order for " words spoken." If (he practice 
of this assembly is adduced, not merely to throw light on the 
latest phasis of Mr. Calhouti's chameleon creed, but to show 
that he has no original right of calling to order, I ask whether 
the authority was cited through confidence in it as a test. If, 
as it is said, the Lord Chancellor "stands in the same irre- 
spou'iible relation to the body over which he presides, that 
the A'ice President docs to the Senate," he is irresponsible to 
the People also ; an immunity which, however the Vice Presi- 
dent may desire it, he fortunately doe? not enjoy. It might, 
however, be conceded, that the Lord Chancellor, an officer of 
Ihe crown, and tracing his official ancestry to times when the 
J itihts of the P.'ople were lost in the power of the Barons and the 
King, and executing no constitutional trust paramount to the 



[ 17 ] 

picrogalive of the former or to the privileges of the latter, haa 
no power to violate the dignity of the Peers, by calhntJj one of 
them to order, unless thereto requested by another. Such a 
privilege, in a British Peer, is not more remarkable than his 
privilege of entering into no recognisance, except in the 
Courts of King's Bench and Chancery ; than his exemption 
from attendance on certain Courts ; than his privilege of being 
tried by Peers only ; than his privilege, equivalent to the 
benefit of cl^.rgy ; than the various other, and particularly the 
Parliamentary, privileges which belong to him. The peculi- 
arities of the Briti^h Constitution may, perhaps, render it ex- 
pedient, that he should, in despite of the spirit of the age, re- 
tain these privileges : But any feudal precedents which they 
may have engendered are surely unlit for the imitation of an 
American Senate, however Mr. Randolph may be excused 
for believing in them. While a member of the House of Re- 
presentatives, he was the habitual maligner of the Senate, as 
the aristocratical branch of our government. Those who 
knew him best, even then prophesied that he would one day 
advocate the enlargement of its authority. As he now en- 
deavours to assimilate it to the House of Peers, 1 am afraid 
that his visit to E;)gland has resulted in something more mis- 
chievous than his studying their pedigrees. In thus denying 
any efficacy to the practice of the Lords, when conflicting 
with that of Legislative bodies which are unalTected by the 
canker of aristocracy, I do not concede, Sir, that under this 
practice the presiding officer of that Body has no original right 
of calling to order. On the contrary, it appears that in a de- 
bate in the House of Lords, on the 1st of February, 1793, 
(see Parliamentary Register, vol. 35, p. 89,) the Lord Chan- 
cellor said, "he could not do better tlian recall the discussion 
*' from the undue extent to which it had proceeded, to its own 
*' bounds." This precedent shows that, if Mr. Calhoun re- 
spects, as he professes to do, the decisions of his " irresponsi- 
'• ble" prototype,he ought to have called Mr. Randolph to order 
on almost every occasion during the last session, on which that 
Senator spoke. But it shows too that the practice of the 
House of Lords is inapplicable to the Senate. For the Lord 
Cliancellor, after makuig the cited rema;k, proceeded to ex- 
hibit, at considerable length, his views of the question under 
debate; a course which would be utterly inadmissible in the 
President of the Am.erican Senate, however elected, and how- 
ever " irresponsible.-' 

One incident of the office of an English liOrd Chancellor is, 
that he is the "keeper of the King's conscience." If, by an- 
alogy, the present Vice-President of the United States, is the 
keeper of their conscience, it might truly be said; Sir, as a 



[18] 

Icnrned lawyer once argued to the Supreme Court, that " the 
•• United Stales have no conscic'ice." 

VVilh !i natural reluctance to understand an unpleasant sub- 
ject, Onslow cites as important to the conlrovers), a rule in 
the '* Manual" that " disordi rly words are not to be noticed 
" till the member has finished his speech; then the person 
" objecting to them, and desiring them to be taken down by 
'' (lie Clerk at (he table must repeat them." This is certain- 
ly the rule in ca«e? where a 7Jiem6fr exercises his right of call- 
ing to order, but its phraseology shows its relation to him, 
and not to the presiding olHcer ; it does not deny the presid- 
ing odicer's right to call to order, and is obviously inapplica- 
bl(! to many cas(!s of disorderly words. A rule o/ Parliament, 
of force in the S*^nate of the United States, provides that 
" 710 one is to xpeuk imprrlinently or* beside the question, svper- 
'■'fliiousli^ or tfdioushj.'''' (Manual, page 54.) It will, I pre- 
sume, be admitted, (hat words of this descriplion are disor- 
derly ; antl yet it cannot be said, that some member must 
<ilher call such a speaker to order, take down his words, and 
that the Clerk at the table must repeat them, or else, (hat (he 
'• nnpertinent, superlluous, tedious" or irrela(ive spf^ech, is (o 
continue ad infinitum. On such a supposidon, bold would 
have been (he darir)g of that Senator, and severe his penalty, 
who could venture to call to order a certain speaker durmg 
the last session, and thus oblige himself to the more than pen- 
itentiary labour of transcribing ravings, which, we have been 
lately told, till nearly four hundred large and closely written 
MS. pages ! Painful would have been the task of the innocent 
cleik; thankless the diligence of the {)rinter, and deep the 
shame of an extensive, an enlightened, and a generous body 
of constituents ! The mind dwells with mingled emotions on 
the fall of a man, whom nature designed for better things than 
to be the unconscious implement of a party. After exhaust- 
ing a brilliant genius in the service of mortified aspirations, 
and malignant passions, and after profaning, with every scur- 
rility, (hat the vocabulary of slander could furnish, the place 
which the Constitution had made the Temple of Dignit) . he 
has left it with no consolation (o liirnself, except ihv. melan- 
choly regret, " non erain qualis sum ;" and has sullered the 
world to perceive in him, with pi(y and scorn, a new illustra- 
tion of Johnson's remark, that Shakspeare, " wanting a buf- 

* Mr. Tazcvvfll is snid to liave boasted, that the ablest speech which his 
rolltanijc (leliveic'ii (luriujr the last session o< the Spiiate, whs against the pin- 
jecled C'liiiveiiliou in Virginia, and that it whs spoken on a ])roposrtl on the 
RuLiject of the halt tnx ! Well were it, bowever, il Irrelativcness had been thi) 
only fdiilf ol Mr. TuiiiiJolph's lawless career dining thatperiotl. 



[ J9] 

" foon, went into the Senate house for that which the Senate 
"house would certaiiih have alForded liim." 

1 am dt lied to produce a single instance in the " proceed- 
" ings, either of the Eu^lish Parliament, or of the American 
"Congr*;ss, in which a membi^r of either of those bodies has 
" been pronounced out of older, even for the most direct and 
"unqualified charge of corruption aj^ainst the executive gov- 
»' ern nent, or any of its Departments." "■ Is there mdeed," 
ask* Odslow, " any American, so ignorant of the rights and 
"privileges of a legislative branch in a free government, as to 
" maintain that the presiding otKcer of either House of Con- 
" gress, could rightfully call a member to order, for charging 
" the President and Secretary of .'State, with having formed a 
'' corrupt coalition." J shall not condescend to answer a de- 
fiance, which is at once, a bold evasion of the question in con- 
troversy, and an awkward artifice to represent me as an ene- 
my to the freedom of debate. I never contended that a repre- 
ss .utive of the people acted disorderly in charging its Govern- 
nu-nt wiih corruption : I never contended that faction might not, 
wi lu'Ut being disorderly, ring the changes on her magical word 
"coalition." however the matter were against truth, or the 
maii'.er against taste. Let such accusations be made ; — let 
them be investigated ; if they be sustained, the people will 
avtnge th- niselvcs ; and if they fail, the accuser can find safety 
in the legislative privilege of slander. But 1 have contended 
and demonstrated, that when a member of a deliberate botJy 
violates order, it is the duty of the presiding otlicer of that 
body to call him to order. Every man knows that speeches 
" impertinent beside the question, supeitluous or tedious," 
have been pronounced, and gross personalities, in the strict 
meaning of the xonrd, uttered duiing the last session of the 
Senate : Every man kriows too that such occurrences were 
violations of ordei". 1 have moreover shown, and shall here- 
after show, still more conclusively, if inductive reasoning can 
be contided in, that the omission, on the part of the I^resident 
of the Senate, to check these violations, originated in im- 
proper motives. In the same unworthy spirit which dictated 
tlie dntiance I have despised, " Onslow" has pernuttfd his 
readers to infer, that I •• most wantonly and gratuitously as- 
" sailed the V^ice-President as the instigator of the duel be- 
'< tween Mr. Randolph and Mr. Clay." Though I never 
made this charge, 1 do not deny, that '• Onslow" may be more 
familiar with the motives of the Vice President, than I am ; 
and Mr. Calhoun's triends have, perhaps, the liberty of sup- 
posing those motives to be as criminal as they please. But if 
the charge is imputed to me, in accordance with that shallow 
sophistry, which augments the accusations of an opponent. '?• 



r 20] 

order by confuting some of them, to render the rest invidioiig, 
J would sugijest, very respectfully, to the advocateb of the 
Vice President, whether there is not more cliivalry than pru- 
dence, in accumulating suspicions on a character which al- 
ready staggers undf^r proofs. 

The pubhc will I hope, do me the justice of believing, that 
1 cited in support of my argument, the Vice-President's 
own practice, not through any particular respect for liis au- 
thority, hut because its repugnancy to his doctrine ilitislrated 
the motives of that doctrine. If " my powers of discrimina- 
*' tion are too feeble to perceive the difterence, the manifest 
" and striking diirerence," between the question arising in 
Mr. Dickerson's case, and "a question effecting the latitude 
or freedom of debate,"' I claim, (though not in the spirit of 
the *•' malim errare cum Platone,''^) the authority of the Vice- 
President for this stolidity. On a question which, according 
to his own showing, admitted of no debate, he allowed Mr. 
Randolph to speak at considerable length: Now, if the Vice- 
President did not consider this question as "aifecting the lati- 
tude or freedom of debate," Mr. Randolph must have been 
suftered, through the Vice-President's partialities or fears, to 
speak where the rules of the House prohibited discussion. — 
And Mr. Calhoun may select between a character for '< fee- 
ble powers of discrimination," and a character for ollicial tur- 
pitude ; a question which I confess myself inadequate to de- 
cide. But tlie distinction taken by '• Onslow" is in truth a 
wretched quibble, and intended merely to keep out of view 
the bearing of Mr. Dickerson's case. This case illustrates 
every proposition which I have advanced, and none more 
strongly than the charge of ''culpable motives." The mi- 
nute history of it in the Alexandria Phoenix Gazette, of 
April 21, 1 826, demonstrates from incontestable concurrent tes- 
timony, that on a certain question Mr. Dickerson rose to 
speak, and was called to order: that Mr. Randolph rose to 
speak, was not called to order, but delivered a speech ; that 
Mr. D. rose again, was called to order, and sat down. It is true 
that Mr. Dickerson acquiesced in this fiiigraut injustice. For 
what opponent of the administration would otFeiid Mr. Ran- 
dolph ? But Mr. Dickerson has since seen the necessity to his 
reputation of disclaiming the V^ice- President as his chieftain. 
'Jhe case of this trimming Senator, is not, however, the only 
^one in which Mr. Calhoun's theory is contradicted by his 
practice ; for it is a well known anecdote of Senatorial deco- 
rum, that in the controversy between Mr. Randolph and Mr. 
Lloyd, the Vice President directed Mr. L. to talie his seat, 
and on rtqu-ating the command, so far forgot his rule in his 
wrath, as to break a harmless seal frame, which stood near 



[21 ] 

him. My " powors of discrimination are so exceedingly fee* 
bio" that I cannot di<tingiiish this '• spirited" proceeding from 
a substantial original call to order. I care not whtither the 
call was made " for words spoktM) in debate," or on a '' ques- 
tion affecting the latilnde or freedom of drbate," or for inde- 
corum of any kind. Onslow may select whichever supposi- 
tion is most fivourabhi to his own argument, or to the reputa- 
tion of the Vice President. 

As a tinal, but bootless, expedient, Onslow asks, " Ought a 
"debate involving ihe conduct and motive of executive uiii- 
" cers, to be checked by the chair, when every member of the 
" Senate deems it to be in order." He then says, " It is ia 
" the power of any Seriator, who thinks a debate disorderly, 
" to call in th»i jurisdiction of th<^ chair, and place the respon- 
" sibiiity of decidnig the question of order on the Vice Presi- 
" dent ; and yet, so restless and reckless is the spirit of accu- 
" sation against ttiat othcer, that he is made responsible for 
"the denunciations uttered in the Senate against the Admin- 
" istration, when not a single friend of the administration, in 
" that body, believes them to be out of order. I presume 
" Patrick H-^nry' will not be disposed to pay so poor a com- 
" pliment to tht" tirmaess of those Senators who are friendly to 
" the administration, as to suppose that, though they believed 
" a speaker to be out of order in denouncing it, they would 
*'so far shrink from the performance of their duty, as to ab- 
" stain from calling him to order." Having before exposed 
the subterfuge by which this writer strives to escape from the 
true question, under the cover of an admitted proposition, I 
will here merely remark, that though unable to deiine the 
motives which govern the minds of all the Senators, I can 
readily imagine in some, a reluctance to volunteer the exer- 
cise of an invidious right, while an officer w >s present, who, 
by performing a solemn duty, would relieve them from such 
a necessity. I do not either concede that in every possible 
question of order a call can be made from the floor. Some of 
the rules ou this subject, mentioned in Mr. Jefferson's Manu- 
al, are obviously capable of being suitably enT^rced by the 
chair only, and that of which Mr. Randolph wa-^ an habitual 
transgressor, (see Jefferson's Manual, "id ed., p. 54,) is, I think, 
of this description. As to the Senators friendly to the admin- 
istration, whose silence is affectedly relied on, my adversary 
well knows that the mo?t decorous interference on their part 
would have subjected them to every malignant imputation, 
every opprobious epithet, and every allusion to the ''gag- 
law." the " freedom of debate," and the other common places 
of his party, which its vulgar rhetoric could supply. 

Whenever the name of Burr is mentioned, the friends of 

4 



[22] 

tbe Vice-President become ix^rvous. Unwillinsc farther to 
alarm their seii?ibiht>\ 1 will now only remind Onflow, ihit 
althoui^h " tho8e who usurp power, and not those who ab-taia 
" from the in)proper assumplinn of it. are the persons w \o 
" ar- justly ob loxious to the charge of ambition," yet an affe ;t- 
ed inoderation is often the clearest mc/(ct?/mol aspiring desig is. 
Julius Cesar ' thrice rt?fused the kmgly crown ;" both Ocia- 
vius and Tiberius* assumed it with violent reluctance ; atid 
Oliver Cromwell " struggled hard with the Lord" before he 
could be persuaded to subvert the liberties of England. When, 
too. some citizens of Baltimore, "good easy souls," in their 
Address of February 2yth, 1801, congratulated a certain indi- 
vidual on "that patriotism which disclaimed competition for 
" the Presidential chair with that other eminent character who 
"had been called to it ;" this individual most sweetly and 
moderately answered, " that as to stepping between tlie will 
"and wishes of the people in opposition to that great and 
" good man, Mr. Jefferson, to whom a large portion of the 
" people of tliis country had fondly looked as a safe depositary 
" of their liberties, he should, in doing so, consider himself un- 
" worthy of confidence, ungrateful to his own feelings, and to 
" those principles by which he had always been actuated.'^ 
Every man acquainted with the secret history of that memo- 
rable period, knows that the amiable correspondent of the 
citizens of Baltimore used all means " per fas et nefas," and 
invoked the powers, not of earth only, but of another place, 
to defeat the election of Mr. Jefferson ; and can therefore 
justly estimate the moderationwhich inspired the passage 1 have 
referred to. But of all species of moderation in a public 
man, that which disclaims an authority delegated to him by 
the People for their own benefit, is the least entitled to ap- 
plause, and the most obvious to suspicion. 

It is said that " the Vice President, and not the question as 
"to his powers, is the real object at which Patrick Henry 
" aims." I shall not deny, JSir, that it is the duty of every 
good citizen, who believes a public officer to act wrongly, 
through bad motives, to expose such misconduct, and to ex- 
hibit him to the people, as a servant who has betrayed his 
trust. At tlie same time, I do not say. that Mr. Calhoun's 
ehameless tolerance of the most flagrant indecencies, and his 
yet more shameless vindication of it, or that the selfish conside- 
rations which infiuenced his appointment of the standing com- 
mittees of the Senate, constitute his heaviest forfeitures of 
public confidence. For, Sir, while every fair principle of ar- 
gument and evidence forces me to despise the clamour of 
"coalition," which is howled against the Administration by 
the eurvivors of a prostrate faction ; certain facts which I 



r 23 ] 

may hereafter employ for the information of (he public, extoi t 
from me the behef, that as other " coahtiens" have jiroved 
abortive, the agents in them are dt;vising new schemes for 
sacnlic ing tlie welfare of their country, at the shrine of their 
own aggrandizement. 

PATRICK HENRY. 



LETTER III. 

[From the JValional Journal, Friday, August 4lh, ] 826.] 

To the Honourable John C. Calhoun, Vice-President of tkt 

United Slates, 

Sir, 

Two letters signed *' Onslow," which have been ad- 
dressed to me through the medium of the National liitelli- 
gei'cer, so clearly indicate their parentage, that I should, per- 
haps, act di«!respectfully to jour official station, in consider- 
ing you anv longer as an anonymous opponent. Though there 
was a time when no man could be insensible to the honour 
of a correspondence with a citizen filling the second otHce of the 
Government. I will n!>t offead your modrstv by atlef liiig any 
peculiar gratiticntion to my vanity from the circumstance that 
you are the incumbent. Tiie Intelligencer very properly 
adopts the general opinion, that in adorning its columts with 
speculations recommended by novelty at least, you " have 
*' other objects in view than the decision of an abstract question 
" of order." But you have been betrayed into an exposure 
of these objects, by an impetuosity characterizing your whole 
political career, and auspicious to your country, because fatal 
to yourself. 

From the commencement of the Government until the last 
session of Congress, order had been preserved i'< the Senate 
under every Vice-President, and decorum, almost rising to 
solemnity, had been a distinctive feature of its proceedings. 
But no sooner were you sent to preside over it, than its hall 
became, as if by some magic agency, transformed into an 
arena where political disappointment rioied in its madness, 
afid the animosities of a spirit, at once fierce and malignant, 
exhibited themselves in every shape offensive to decency, and 
even hunted their victim in the shelter of the grave. The 
Patres Conscripti of the land, the Representatives of twenty- 
four Sovereign Republics, no longer extending their constant, 
parental vigilance to the concerns of the Empire, were, to the 
heavy loss of its treasure and its fame, degraded into being 



[ 24 ] 

auditors of vituperations, elaborate as they were wanton, and 
almost rivaling the cla-^sic pre eminence of Bilhngst/ate. Dur- 
ing llus organized defiance of the decorum essential not only 
to legislative deliberation, but to social intercourse, what 
part of the spectacle was most conspicuously shameful ? It was, 
that in the Constitutional Temple of Dignity, the appointed 
High Priest beheld ils altars profaned, and its sacrifices bro- 
ken, without one effort at defence, or uttering one word of re- 
proof; but sat •' an Abbot of Mi-rule." pleased with anarchy, 
or a political aspirant, too ft-arful in duty, and too bold in am- 
bition, even " to hint a fault, or hesitate dishke.'' 

The existence and the enormity of the disorders which have 
been alluded to. are, unhappily, too notorious to require the 
adduction of evidence. It is e(]ually notorious, that they 
were not repressed : It must be universally conceded that 
they ought to have been repressed, and that on some public 
agent or agents, censure for the toleration of them must de- 
servedly rest. Until common sense was first startled hy your 
extraordinary, but very intelligible heresies, no man even af- 
fected to doubt that it was of the very essence of the duties 
imperious on an officer presiding over a deliberative assembly, 
to do what he was appointed, and what, by accepting the of- 
fice, he had implicitly promised to do; or that of such duties 
the most signal constituent was the preservation of order. — 
From these principles, it followed that the mere appointment 
of the officer, clothed him vvith the right, and subjected him to 
the duty, of preservng order; and where the appointment 
proceeded from a supreme authority, the farther consequence 
was apparent, that no inferior authority was competent to 
enervate the right, or to remove the duty. When the doctrine 
came to be applied to the Vice-President of the United Slates, 
whom the People had appointed to preside over the Senate^ 
and whom, therefore, they had empowered and directed to 
preserve order therein, the corollary resulted, that the People 
ojily could devest of any of its characteristics, the office which 
they had created; and that the clause of the Constitution au- 
thorizing the Senate " to determine the rules of its proceed- 
ings," could not be construed as conferring on that body 
any Hich power. The contempt for tfiese plain propositions, 
which 3'Mir oilicial practice had manifested, having at length 
aroused general censure in no ordinary degree, you attempted, 
on the 15th of April, more than four months after the begin- 
ning of the Session, to defend this practice, on what you hoped 
would be at least plau-ible grounds. The. incredulity of the 
puhhc reipiiring, however, farther efforts for its removal, you 
oppressed (he newspapers with assumptions winch, after 
foaming awhile into every variety of logical extravagance, 



[25] 

subfsidRcl in thp doctrine, that the rules of the Senate are the 
exclusive source ot the Vice-President's powers in ihat bod^. 
This rush d-fi;ince of the Constitution now seeks proltclion 
under the paradox, that the preservation of order forms no 
part of the presiding power in a deliberative Hssemhiy. After 
stating that ' an inherent power" is one that belongs essential- 
ly to tlie " ofhc.e, and is in its nature in^^eparable from it," 
and lv.)t bv necessai) inference it mtist belong to the presid- 
ing otHcer of every dehberative assembly, you argue, bt-cause 
one branch of the British paihament has, and the other has 
poi, as you assert after Mr. Ramlolph, conferK d certain pow- 
ers on its presiding otH<er, that (uther fact disproves the 
p'->wers to be inherent. The illu-^tration derived from the 
House of Commons is singularly unhappy. Waiving for the 
present any reliance on the circumstance that many rules of 
that House, cited by Mr. Jefferson, so far from being grants 
of power to the Speaker, are merely declaratory of the sense 
which it entertained of his powers, and were probably elicited 
b> some diversities of opinion among the members, I suggt^st 
to you the expediency of hereafter resorting to history for 
facts, instead of ransacking the armory of monkish logic for 
some ruj>ty weapon of controversy. Had your inquiries been 
prosecuted more fully, or more fairly, yc^ii would have found 
that on the first appointment, in the year 1377, by the House 
of Commons, of a Speaker, his oHJce was merely that of a 
messenger to the King, and that he attained, by gradual ap- 
proaches only, the charactrr of a presiding officer. " From 
" the primitive situation (says a learned writer) of the Com- 
" mons, who in all cases were instructed how to act, they had 
" no opportunity of debating upon any subject, but they re- 
" quired a person to intimate their determinations to the King, 
*' and /or //its purpose thty, at first, ehcted a Speaker. The 
" furtlier ttie busint^ss of that House was extended, the more 
*' they ventured to form resolutions without the advice of their 
"constituents. The power and privileges of their Speaker 
" were enlarged in proportion ; and he, at length, obtained the 
^^ province of n,n ordinary President.'''' — (Sit Millar''s Historical 
Vnw of the English Governmeut. vol- 2, page 255, fourth edi- 
tion.) For a long time, th( n, the Speaker of the House of 
Commons "■ had not obtained the province of an ordinary 
President.'''' But when that House, emerging from its primi- 
tive feudal insignificance, acquired the character and felt (he 
dignity of a deliberative assembly, it perceived the necessity 
of order to its proceedings, and aimexed the power of main- 
taining it to an office which originally had been established 
for another purpose. Experience, aitd j)rugies«ive civility, 
finally furnished the House of Commons with a complete im- 



[26] 

a»e of the presiding power; and disputes in regard to the na- 
ture of that power were settled by declaralorv lu. - wiiile 
other rules were adopted to remedy any deticiency in its 
strength. At length the Speaker '■' obtained the province of 
an ordinary President.'''' And wtiat is that province ? History 
and custom, though you are deaf to the harmony of their 
united voices, declare that it is " first, the power of preserv- 
ing order in" the deliberations of the body over which he 
presides; " next, that of collecting the sense of its members 
*' on any question submitted to their decision ; and thirdly, 
" that of authenticating, by his signature, its legislative acts." 
To this construction, the cominon sense of mankind agiees. 
The most uneducated member of a village meeting, when 
asked what he expects from the individual whom he calls to 
the chair, will answer, substantially, in the language of these 
specifications. The fallacy of your argument arises from the 
postulate that the oflice can be created without the powers 
necessary to the performance of its duties, and, therefore, in- 
herent in its nature: And with characteristic dising(-nuous- 
ness, you avail yourself of the fact that the Speaker of the 
House of Commons had at one time no power to pres^erve or- 
der, carefully suppressing another fact, that he was then not a 
presiding officer. But the irresistible dictate of reason is, that 
the creation of an office is, ipso facto, the creation of the 
powers incident to its nature, and indispensable to its opera- 
tion ; and that otherwise, however existing in name, the ofJice 
does not exist in fact. An office, like every thing else, must 
have an origin ; whence, you infer that it has no inherent 
powers, or, in other word*, does not exist because it was crea- 
ted. Instead of contendiiig^fnfr&//y, as you wantonly charge 
me witli contending, that the individual who fills it '" holds his 
" power independently of the will of the body over which he 
"presides; which can neither give nor take it atvay, nor 
"modify tlie mode of exercising it. nor control its operation," 
I never denied thatrtll these acts were competent to the au- 
thority which coif erred the appointment. The House of Com- 
mons, or the Hou*e of Representatives, each of xvhicb elects 
its Speaker, is. without qu«stion, physically competent to de- 
vest the office of i(s constituent pow<r-^ ; to reduce it to the 
same automaton that }ou have made yourself, and still to re- 
tain the name. But, as you correctly remark, '' to divest the 
" office of it, (i. e. an inherent power,) would be to change its 
"nature. It would be no longi^r the same office." This 
would, indeed, be a triumph of force over reason. But would 
it prove that tfie office never had possessed any inherent 
powers? As plausibly might it be aigued that because some 
men have been made slaves, the right of personal liberty is 



[27] 

not inherent in every man ; or that the right to freedom of 
conscience, because despotism or superstition has often op- 
pressed it, is not also inherent. 

Congenial to the logical deceit which has just been ex- 
posed, is >our mnxim "that there are, indeed, inherent 
" powers, but ihey are in the body^ and not in the ojjlctr.'''' If 
your principles were a proper test, I should here have only to 
ask, how can you suppose power to be inherent in the body 
even, of which the origin is extriiisic ? The body as much oe- 
rives its powers from the authority creating it, as an ollicer 
chosen by it derives his powers from the body ; and can, there- 
fore, on your hypothesis, possess no inherent powers. But 
being by no means partial to your peculiarities of reasoning, 1 
shall admit that every body, aggregate or individual, or how- 
ever created, possesses certain inherent powers ; and that a 
deliberative assembly, for example, has the inherent power of 
creating some particular office, not previously created by par- 
amount authority. Such an assembly, however, unless it com- 
mits the absurdity of expressly withholding from the office 
the powers essential to its nature, and thus changes that na- 
ture, confers on the office by the single fact of creating it, eve- 
ry power necessary for the performance of its duties. The 
very establishment of the office is the combination of the ele- 
ments essential to its nature, which, therefore, are inherent in 
the office, and ex vi termini belong to it. On an opposite 
theory, the equality ot the three angles of a triar)gle to two 
right angles, is a property inherent, not in triangles, but in the 
mathematician who constructs them ; and air is a property 
inherent, not in the universe, but in the Deity exclusively, 
because He made the Universe. 

The House of Commons having, I have said, converted their 
messenger into a presiding officer, at length consummated the 
idea of the powers essential to his new character. This idea 
is exposed to the criticism of the world. The world adopts 
it, and the acquiescence of ages confirms its authority. In 
this state of things, with the complete image before it, of a 
presiding office, armed with certain powers, and charged with 
certain duties, each branch of the American legislature assem- 
bles, though under widely different circumstances. The 
House of Representatives having the faculty of electing its 
presiding officer, had also the faculty ot enlaiging his powers, 
or of abridging, even to the extreme of annihilating, those 
powers. What was the course of that House ? Satisfird with 
the construction which the most celebrnted popular assembly 
of modern times had, under the advant^g(;5 of long experience, 
placed on the presiding power, and with t'le ratification of that 
construction by the common sense of mankind ; regardless of 



f 28] 

any exception to it which, in an insolnted instance, may possibly 
have sarvived i\n- victory of knowledge over feucial barbari- 
ty • the HoiiJie of Reprtsenlativos, amid numerous rule> form- 
ed for municipal convenience, adopted none either enfoicirg, 
or hmiting. the received idea of the presiding power. The 
rule which it seems cha», with dei^pirate pertinacity, you still 
ini?cal an "express rule" of the llousje of Representatives, 
conferring on its .Speaker the general power of calling to or- 
der, is in these words, viz : '" If any member, in speaking or 
otherwise, transgress the rules of tht House, the Speaker sAa//, 
or any member niny call him to order." As this rule pro- 
vides, in terms, foi the cases of violations of the rules of the 
House, and for no other, the inference from it is not only co- 
gent, but unavoidable, that any disorder not falling within its 
operation, w.is left to the operation of some other authority. 
And wliereis that authority ? There is no rule of the House 
for the repression of many disorders, which the Speaker, with 
its entire acquiescence, and responding it to its just expecta- 
tions, has always undertaken to repress. H-- must therefore 
have done so, by virtue oi some power which the House con- 
ceived to be inherent in his oliice, and not deserving ttie fornti- 
ality of regulation. Beside these disorders which have been 
committed, others are possible, to which also no rule can be 
applied. Where is the rule agiinst menacing gestures and 
against assaults ? Cases which, unless the ind'gmnt voice of 
the People be hereafter more respected than it was during the 
last winter, will, in another place, probably be historical. — 
Can the most greedy credulity believe that it would not be 
within the power, and a part of the duty of the Speaker, to 
call to order the member guilty of such improprieties ? Yet, 
reckless of the usages of the House of Representatives, and 
with the besetting feudalism of your logic, you argue, because 
that House has passed a rule requiring the Speaker to inter- 
pose in some given cases of irregularity, that it is an " express 
rule," applicable to every case. 

Every State Legi?lHture of the Union, which, or either of 
whose branches, convened under the circumstances that have 
been described, had, like the House of Representatives, the 
faculty of determining the powers of its presiding officer; 
but concurred with that lionise in its practical assertion that 
some powers were inherent in the presiding otlicer of a de- 
liberative assembly, and that consequently, rules in regard to 
such powers were superfluous. 

A body capable, as the House of Representatives is, of 
choosing its presiding otlicer, has, I have admitted, the physi- 
cal power to devest his oliice of its characteristics, and thus 
change its nature. So too the people of the United States, 



r 29 J 

in declaring thaf the Vice-Prtsulent "shall be President of 
the SonHtr," rniglst have annexed to his ufhce an; power or 
di^.lblhfy whatever. But instead of doing so. they sunpl) in- 
ve.sted hiin with the presiding power, and must therefore he 
supposed lo have understood that power in the sense v\hieh 
custom had atHxed to it. As custom had long before declared 
that the right and duty of preserving order was an inherent 
part of the presiding power, the People in sending the Vice- 
President iy preside over the Senate, required him to pre- 
serve order in its proceedings. The Senate assembled then, 
not like the other House with full power over its municipal 
arraii'-emepts, but under the authorit)' of an instrument which 
vnojlaiu empowered il to assemble, and the Vice President 
to act as its presiding officer. It was then incompetent, even 
physically, to deprive this functionary of any of tin; capacities 
essential to his ofiice, or more briefly, to change the mature >( 
that office. Assuming it as a reasoiiable postulate, that the 
People, in appointing p President ot the Senate, intended hinri 
to perform some dutj . I inquire what that duty is. It is pre- 
scribed no where in the Constitution, and any of which this 
instrument may be understood to authorize his performance 
will, when specitied, be found to comprise the preservation of 
order. If the People of the United States did not affix to the 
presiding power the meaning which mankind had placed oa 
it, did they design to erect an empty pageant, or an automa- 
ton, which has recently been far less respectable in its opera- 
tions than that of Mr. Maelzel ? This is a conjecture so dis- 
paraging to their understanding, that after the boasts of ven- 
eniion for them, which }ou have made with a repetition at 
once irksome and suspicious, you can scarcely allow it to be 
probable. Did the People then, on the only hypothesis which 
remains to you, create an office, and leave it to the Senate to 
assign the duties of that office? If so, the People merely de- 
termined on the name, and the Senate were to d' termine on 
the substance : The b»plism preceded the birth. On this sup- 
position, nothing can prevent the Senatij, if so inclining, from 
requiring its clerk, instead of the Vice President, to colhcl its 
sense on any question; from declaring that the Vice Presi- 
dent's signature is unnecessary to the authentication of its acts; 
or from imposing on him the dnties of the clerk. Vou are 
doubtless, prepared to charge the^e illustrations with being 
extravagant a.nd absurd ; and con?i9'e1ring they are the off- 
spring of your own doctrine, there is some reason for suspect- 
ing them of a filial resemblance. If, indeed, the Con>titutioQ 
had been silent, and the S'enatc had conveiu d wi'h an unre- 
stricted right of municipal legislation, it might have chosen a 
presiding othcer, and then ruled tliese, auu an) otuer iiiuilar 



[ 30 J 

absnrditifiis ; because, however such absurdities might nullify 
Ills odicc, they would have proceeded from an authority 
whi'.;h w;is under no physical disability to violate, ad libitum^ 
re;isoii and usage. But as the People had established an of- 
fice of ascertained powers and duties, the Senate would have 
transcended the sphere of its Constitutional competency in 
devesting that oftice of any of these characteristics. 

It is said, however, that the very Constitution which au- 
thoriz(.9 the Vice President \o preside over the Senate, also au- 
thoriz(!9 the Senate to " determine the rules of its proceed- 
" ings, to punish its members for diorderly conduct, and with 
"the concurrence of two thirds, to expel a member." On 
this provision, an arp;ument is built, to which you ascribe "ir- 
resistible force," and which, in compliment to your admiration 
of it, 1 shall insert : 

" Tlie Constitution lias vested the Senate with the right of determining the 
" rul'S of its pioceeciings, and of ponishiiig members for disorderly conduct, 
" which may extend even to expulsion. The ^reat object of giving the power 
'' to establish rules, is to preserve order. The only effectual means of pre- 
" serving order is to prescribe by rules, vk-liat sliall be a violation of order, and 
•' to enlorre tlie same by adequate punishment The Senate alone has tliese 
" power.* by the Constitution; consequently, the Senate alone has the rigiit ol 
" enforcing order ; and, consequently, whatever right the Vice President posses- 
** ses over ortler, must be derived from the Senate ; and, therefore, he c;in ex- 
•' ercise no power in adopting rules or enforcing them, but what has been dele- 
" gated to him by the Senate, and only to the extent, both in manner and mat- 
" tor, to v/!)i(:h the power has been delegated. The particular power in ques- 
" tion not having been delegated, cannot be exercised by the Vice President, 
" and, consequently, he is not responsible.'' 

If an unhniiled latitude of assumption, and manufactured 
facts, were lawful implements of controversy, any thing might 
be proved, and even you might be successfully defended. 
Aware that your vindication required a license of this sort, you 
have, with the Coiistitution staring you in the face, assumed that 
the clause from which these deductions are derived, is the 
only part of it referring to the Vice President's province in 
the Senate. The Constitution does indeed " authorize the 
" ScumI*' lo determine the rules of its proceedings," but it also 
authori/fg (he Vice rre^k]eni to preside over, and, conspquent- 
Iv. as lias been shown, to preserveorder in that body. You are 
said to have been educated a lawyer. Have you forgotten 
that el'Mnentary rule of construrtion, adopted, " ut res magis 
valeat quam percat,"and retpiiring that any written instrument 
must, if posvible, be so inter[)reted as that effect may be given 
to each of its parts? Or do you consider any clause of Ihe 
Constitutiot), which would operate in restraint of your desigiiS, 
ns a repugnant proviso, and therefore void ? Instead of so 
con>lruiiig the clause delegating to the Vice President the pre- 
siding power, and the clause investing the Senate v^Tth the rule- 



[31 ] 

makins: power, as tiiat each sliuulil retain its energy, you are 
driven l'> ^.he pitiable exij^eiiC) of asserting ttiat {[v:. aciivH'. i>l 
the one is the paral}sis of the other. If there were any force 
in this chief d'oeiivre <»f reasoning, it mi^ht be as pi-opcrly on- 
tended, that th," cl uise giving th*^ presiding pow(;r liull'ti'-.") .he 
chiiise giving the ruh; making power, as that iho latter niilhfies 
the former. But, rejecting the " irresistible" argumei.i. I 
merely remark, that the presiding power granted in one pari of 
the Constitution is obviously and entirely competih'u; with the 
rule-making power granted in another. There may, I ailmit, be 
cases in which the hue of demarcation between them is not very 
clear; but attributes may be affirmed of each, sutlicient to indi- 
viduate it. For example, under the rule-making power dele- 
gated to the Senate, that body is, undoubtedly, competent to 
tix the hours and days of its meeting ; the periods for taking 
up business; the number of readings which a bill shall under- 
go : To declare how often a member may speak : To regu- 
late the engrossment and printing of bills : And to uo various 
other municipal acts, of which the enumeration is unneces- 
sary. It is equally manifest that under the presiding power, 
delegated to the Vice President, he has authority to take !he 
chair when the Senate meets: To collect its sense: And to 
preseive order. Here, then, is the simple explanation of the 
two clauses : An explanation written on the forehead of the 
Constitution : An explanation that gives to those clauses com- 
plete efilcacy, and to the Constitution a symmetrical movement : 
An explanation which is inevitable, unless the venerable fra- 
mers of this instrument be convicted of a self contradiction, 
gross as that which you imputed to the illustrious, and now la- 
mented author of the Declaration of Independence. 

However familiar with sophistry, and requiring its aid, you 
do not, I think, improve in the management td its weapons* 
Or, perhaps, the fever of resentment inflames }(hi to rave in 
dogmas which are hostile not to truth only, but to plausibility. 
Did honest ignorance, or delirious anger, precipitate you on 
the declaration, ihat " the right of calling to order, in the strict 
" literal meaning V (I give you the full benefit of your itolic/cs.) 
" so far from being derived from the right of preserving order," 
'' is not even connected with it?" That the means by which 
an end is to be accomphslied, are •' not even connected with" 
that end, is a doctrine which, however it may be exemplilied 
by a comparison of the attempt to vindicate yourself wi;, the 
measures you adopt for that o!)ject, snrtdy deserves, as an ab- 
stract proposition, the praise of a discovery, though it will 
never need the protection of a patent right. 1 leave you to 
the uninterrupted enjoyment of it. uud wnen modeled irito 
perfec on, it may probably be laid on the same shell wi.ero 



[ 3-2 1 

Te«ts the metaphysical demonstration that there is no cou- 
nexion between cause and effect. This intrepid absurdity is 
followed by a sophism which endeavors to hide its weakness 
in a fortress of italick^. '' The right of preserving orde,^^ 
yoj say, " depends on the right of enforcing it, or the right of 
'^ punishment for breaches 0/ o^ycr, always possessed by the 
" body, but never, either by delegation or otherwise, by the 
" Chair." Unfortunately for its purpose, thif position, if true, 
would, with the (Vital hb^ rality of many <>f your arguments, 
prove too mueh ; for in given ca=es, the right would be indeed 
a naked right, as the Senate might need the co-operation of 
the House of Representatives, and both finally the aid of the 
President of the United Stales, in directing the force of the 
nation. No Spci^ker, nor other presiding otlicer of a delibe- 
Tiitive body, has physically the power of enforcing order. In 
the instance of the Senate, that depends on other officers of 
the Hou-e in regard to exterior, and on the Senate itself in re- 
gard to interior, affairs. But the enforcement of order maj 
be exerted, successively by the President, or the other officers 
of the Senate, by the Senate itself, and where the source of 
disorder should be beyond the competency of the officers of 
the Senate to repress, as (for example, a military corps.) by 
the Executive G<.vernment. The true theory is, that all the 
functionaries should in their respective order, discharge their 
respective duties. Let the President of the Senate exert his 
right of preserving order, and if he exert it ineffectually, he 
stands acquitted of all blame, which will rest tinally on the 
agents who may deserve it. Iq your instance its direction has 
never wavered. 

In averring that the Senate only could enable the Vice Pre- 
sident to preserve order, you hoped, no doubt, to wm its fa- 
vour by exaggerating its power ; not perceiving that in thus 
repelling public censure from yourself, you necessarily trans- 
ferred it to the Senate, by making that body respon^lble for 
the scenes of the last Session. But it is the misfortune of 
your arguments, as well as of your ambition, that in attempt- 
ing extrication from one difficulty you invariably stumbh^ on a 
greater. J'erhap?, however, as you profess almost religious 
reverence for the Senate. \nu expected to propitiate it to }our 
wishes, by means of a libel on its conduct ; like that savage 
nation winch whips the images of its Gods, till they grant itfr 
prayers. 

PATRICK HENRY. 



[33] 



LETTER TV. 



[From the yational Journal, Saturday, /ivgust 3lh, 1820.} 
^0 the Honourable John C. Calhoun, ^jc« President of thf 



United Stales. 



Sir, 



Your historical re«ef>rches have, it seems, informed you, 
that " there was a time when ininions of power thought it 
" monstrous, that all of the power* of rulers should be de- 
*' rived from so low and tillhy a source as the Peoj)le whom 
" they governed." Is it sympathy in this opinion that so 
displeases you wiih the proposition which I have demonstrated, 
that the power and duty of preserving order, and repressing 
irrfgularit), are constitutionally attaciit-d to the oi'Hce of Pre- 
sident of the Senate by the People who created thai oHice ? 
Whatever cause excited your displeasure, was sufficient to 
betray you into the indiscretion of ascribing (he origin of this 
pi: pojiition to " feelings leaning strongly on the side of pow- 
er ;" an allegation made in the teeth of a principle, deriving 
the authority of the Vice President directly from the People, 
and annouiiced as the very " nucleus" of jny argument. My 
cardinal objection to your conduct during the last session of 
Congress, was, that it involved a refusal, on your part, (o carry 
into effect the 'vill of the People, by executing a trust which 
they had confided to you ; and instead of attributing to the 
Vue President " high and uncontrollable power," I expressly 
characterized it as a delegated, and consequently, a responsi- 
ble power. Indr-d, unless I had done so, mv argument would 
have been nearly as preposterous as your own. On the o'lier 
bind, you attempted to trace its birth to the Senate, and 
claimed for that body the right of setting itself abne the Peo- 
pie, by adopting rules which might change the nature of an 
otiice created by the People. Yet your sympathies " are on 
the democratic side of our institutions!" They are then 
most singularly manifested, by subjecting an act of the Peo- 
ple themselves to the control of tlie anstnrratical branch of 
the Government. If the Senate can assume this control in 
one instance, why may it not do so in another, and thus para- 
lyse, whenever occasion offers, other provisions of the C'onsti- 
tution ? And here. Sir. permit me to borrow a passage from 
your letters which, while it exem{)lifies the vigour of your' 
style, is pertinent to my purpose, and to say that " power so 
" despotic and dangerous," as that claimed for the Senate, 
•' so inconsistent with the tirst principles of liberty, and every 
" souiid view of the Constitution, was never attempted to be 
" estabiislied on arguments so imbecile and absurd •, to which 



[ 34 ] 

'i no intellect, however badly organized, could yield assent, 
" unless issociited with I'eelings leaning strongly to the side of 
" power." All my sympathies heing, on the contrary, " on 
" the democratic side of our institutions," I mist with the per- 
mision of yourself and •• your associates," — " under leave of 
Brutus and the rest," — still confide in the doctrine which I have 
endeavoured to place beyond the reach of sophistry and de- 
clam;itioii, that the power of the Vice President to preserve 
order in the Senate, is delegated by the Constitution ; or, to 
borrow again a llower from your elegant rhetoric, is " derived 
" from so low and filthy a source as the People." 

The suicidal attempt to transfer from yourself to me the 
character of being a partisan of power, was preceded by an 
expression of pretended surprise on your part, that after as- 
serting the presiding power in the Senate to •* rest on deeper 
" holier foiuulaliuns, than any rules or usages which that body 
" may adopt," I should investigate those rules and usages. 
A view less partial than you took of the letter of Onslow, 
published in May, would have shown you that this inquiry 
resulted, not from any distrust of my original position, but 
from your scorn of the Constitution, and reference to the 
Senate as the sole fountain of the powers of its presiding offi- 
cer. It then became proper for me to demonstrate, that even 
were this reference conceded to be correct, it would not sus- 
tain your positions, because the Senate had framed no rule 
nor usage justifying the construction which you placed on the 
office ol its President. On this subject, to adopt your bril- 
liant antithesis, " the rules are mute, and the Journals of the 
" Senate silent." And well may they be so ; for a regulation 
devesting the Vice-President of his presiding character, would 
be against reason and the Constitution. The Gth and 7th 
rules, vvi:;ch have been so often quoted as the basis of your 
arsmnor^t, arc palpably designed for cases which they spe- 
cify, (calls to order from the floor,) and do not impair the 
right of the chair to call to order; nor can any other rule of 
the Senate be tortured into such an operation. The mere si- 
lence of the Senate concprnir;g this rit^ht, strongly indicates 
the acquiescence of that body in the construction of it, which 
had so long been sanctioned by custom ; but the question is 
placed b»-yond controversy by "the law of proceedings in the 
Senate." What are (he constituents of this law ? Mr. Jefferson 
tells us that they are '• the precepts of the Constitution, the 
" regulations of the Senate, and where these are silent, the 
«' rules of Parliamml.''' But, substantially denying this last 
position of Mr. Jt:i!crson, and opposing your own authority 
^o liis, you ask, *' how came they (i. e, the rules of Parliament) 
I. to be the rules of the Senate .'" Mr. Jeirerson has aa- 



[35 1 

swercd this interrogatory. lie tells us that '' the extensive 
*' field of decision," placed under the discretion of the i*re- 
sident of the Senate, in consequence of the rules of that body 
" go'^^g o"b' to ^'^'^ ca5e>," impressed on his mind " the neces- 
*' sity of recurring, for its govertmient, to sonip, known system 
" of rules ;" that he recurred to the rules of fhe Enylish Par- 
liament ; and that " the acquiescence of the Scnateriutherto 
" under the references to them, had given them the sanction of 
^'^ their approbation.'^'' The appearance of Mr. J^'tli-rson's book 
cerlainiy did not induce the Senate to repent of this acciuios- 
cence, but, on fhe contrary, the Manual fultilled the promise of 
its title page, and became " A Manual of Parliamentary Prac- 
'• tice, /"or the use of the Senate of the United States,''^ After 
the incorporation of the rules of Pailiament into " the law of 
*' proceedings in tlie Senate, the President's previously ' ex- 
" tensive field of decision' became narrowed." I did not, as 
you perversely insinuate, refer to '• this entensive field of de- 
" cision," " to show that where the Senate has adopted no 
" rules of its own, the rules of Parliament are those of the 
" Senate;" but to show that rules of Parliament had been 
adopted, contracting that field j and also because Mr. Jeffer- 
son, in suggesting that the President's discretion, whether in 
doing wrong, or in doing nothing, should be limited by "some 
*' known system of rules," seems to have foreseen a recent 
example. The discrepancy between some rules of the Senate, 
and some of the Parliamentary rules cited by Mr Jefferson, 
proves nothing in your favor; because he expressly disclaims 
for such Parliamentary rules, any authority over the Senate, 
and introduces them, obviously as historical illustrations. But 
those rules of Parliament that embrace cases " on which the 
" precepts of the Constitution" and " the regulations of the 
" Senate," " are silent,^'' form, he says, a part of "• the law of 
" proceedings in the Senate." Such are precisely the rules, 
as I heretofore demonstrated, which, though the object in- 
deed required no rule, imposed ou you the duty of suppres- 
sing Mr. Randolph's irregularities 

The usage of the Senate is accordant to the doctrine which, 
both on general principles and on the ground of regulation* J 
have delended. Facts to prove the usage cannot, of course, 
be expected in much detail, from so curt a chronicle as the 
Journals of the Senate, and therefore you refer to them. Yet. 
in a volume which happens to be near me, I find " that a motion 
" for the previous question was made ; and upon a declaration 
^^ from the Vice-President, that the previous question is not in 
*' order, upon an amendment to the bill, a motion was made, 
" that the question on the final passage of tlie bill be post- 
" poaed until Monday next ; and it passed in the negative.'" 



[38 ] 

(See Journal of the Senate for February 5, 1800.) Here was 
att extTcise of the presiding power, in its ordinary seiioe ; a 
sub^laIltiill call to order. If you contend tliat it wa- not ^n 
application o( the presiding power to " the latitude or freedom 
'• of debate," or " to words spoken in df;bate," and ihe dis- 
tinction should, for ari^u n.nt's sake, be adtnitted, it would not 
avail you. For, on a doctrine deriving the powers of the 
President of the Senate from its rules only, since no rule au- 
thorizes you to ex<^rt the original power of staying a nnotiun 
for the previous question, you would act as usurpinglv in thus 
exerting that power, as in calli g a member to order m the 
cases just specified. An unanswerable objection to your apo- 
logy is, that on its principles, the President of the Senate ha*, 
in no case, oilier than an appellate power of suppressing irre- 
gularity of any knid. Indeed, if your theory be true, that 
olHcer would, if the Senate were to forbear making rules di- 
recting his conduct, be an absolute nullity. 

But contempoiitiv public itions, more minute than the Jour- 
nals of the Senate, are not deticient in evidence that the ori- 
ginal right of lis presiding otliier to call to order, on " ques- 
" tions touching the latitude or ff^edom of debate," or for 
" words spoken in debate," tlje cases on which your shifting 
creed was successively suspended, has been exerted and re- 
cognised. In a letter from Mr. Hebb published in the National 
Journal of July !26, 1 826, that exjierienced gentleman says : 

*' I have just laid my hands on the debates in the Senate, in the year 1803, 
** on the resolutions offered by Mr. Ross of Pennsylvania, authorizing ilie Fre- 
" sidenl to take possession of New Orleans, or some place «djnceiit; and I 
** observed that Air. Dayton remarked, 'If I art disorderly, the President has 
*' a right to call me to ordi-r : he must decide whet'ier I am in order or not.' Mr. 
•' Tracy also remarked, ' Accoidina; to pHrliameutary proceedings, no one can 
«' take posse tion of the floor to ilie interrupiion of anoth-r: if riisorderif, ihe 
«' President will call him to order ; but if called by a meinber, the Pre-i Jeiit 
*' must decide ; and, if in order, he must possess the floor ' Mr. Nicholas, of 
«• Virginia, rose and said, he wished to tnyke one or two observations in reply 
•' to Mr. Ross. The Vice President interrupted liim and said. ' If those obser- 
«• vations were intended to apply to the question whether the resolutions should 
k' be the order for Moni'ay, they would be proper : otherwise, they would not 
«' be in order.' Mr. Nicholas proceeded, when the Vice President again inter- 
<' rupted him, and informed him that, ' no remark in reply to the gentleman 

• 'from Penn.sylvania upitn Ihal question could be admitted.' '' The power of 
«' the chair, as here laid down, was not controverted, and the Senate then 
«' was composed of as able and disti!ii;uished members, (during the discussion of 

• ' these resolutions,) as at any pievious or subsequent period. 1 will only enu- 
•' nitrate such men as fJe VVjlt Clinton, James Rost, ^Stephen T. Mason, Gover- 
•' Dcur .Morris, W. C. Nicholas, and Mr. Brackenridge'' 

Against the evidence, which you must have known to exist, 
of the sanction given by the Senate to its President's original 
right of calliiifi to order, you asserted that i\lr. JelFei^oii Irm- 
sclf had described tii.it right as appellate only. Your adher- 



[ 37 ] 

ence to the violent apsiimption that Mr. Jefferson used the 
word " umpirage" in a ter.hiiical«t"iise, iiidicatug an appellate 
power, is, perhaps, the most sigDal instance of polemical ob- 
stinacy that exists. The assumption not only supposes, as I 
fully showed, that Mr. J< fferson, by a single word, contradicted 
the whole Parliamentary system which he had framed, but italso 
supposes him to have been unacquainted with the technical 
meaning of that word. Precision and elegance characterize 
the style of that extraordinary man ; and he can scarcely be 
suspected, in using a term of art, of a technical impropri3ty. 
JMow, in technical phrase, the word which he would have em- 
ployed to convey the idea imputed to him, is " arbitration ;'* 
it being only in the event of an abortive attempt at arbitration, 
that the office of an umpire arises. Not agreeing with you 
that Mr. JyfTerson would grossly contradict himself, or that 
he was ignorant of the force of lerms. I argued that he used 
the word '• umpirage" in its popular sense — an argument en- 
tirely competible with his reputation for consistency and lite- 
rary eminence. But, as you aver, in this sense " there is not 
" one instance of its being used by any respectable authority." 
Instead of accumulating quotations, as the most superficial 
examination of the English classics would enable me to do, I 
select, from an authority, '• respectahW'^ in all eyes, save those 
of a single individual, two passages. Of these, while both 
are examples of the popular sense of the word "umpire," 
the first may encourage you to reform the conduct which the 
second so vividly portrays. 

Mine ear shall not ba slow, mine eye rot shut, 
And I will place within them as a guide 
My umpire Conscience, whom if they will hear, 
Light after light, well used, they Shall attain. 
And to the end persisting, safe arrive. 

[^Paradise Lost, Book 3, v. 193. 

To whom these most adhere, 
He rules a moment: Chaos umpire sits; 
And by division more embroils tlie fray, 
By which he reigns. 

[Ibid. Book 2, V. 908. 

If, as some nations have held, a poet is also a prophet, who 
would not believe that Milton wrote the last lines just after 
he had penetrated, through the shadows of nearly two centu- 
ries, into the American Senate house, while Mr. Randolph was 
practising " the freedom of debate,^'' and you were ^^presid- 
ing .*'" 

Not only has the Senate acknowledged the rights which 
have been proved to appertain to its President, but it has re- 
cognised his peculiar Constitutional character. When that 

f) 



[ 38] 

body ac(s as in committee of the whole, or quasi committee^ 
as Mr. JetFcrsori denominates it, the Vice-President never 
le;i^ es the chair, as in a similar case, the Speaker of the House 
of R' presentatives does. The reason of the difference is, 
that the Senate cannot, under any notion of '' determining the 
"■ rules of its proceedings," suspend the powers of the Presi- 
dfut ordained to it by the Constitution. On the same prin- 
ciple, appeals from his decisions, on points of order, are not 
allowed. Such appeals are familiar to every deliberative 
assembly which is, itself, the fountain of authority to its pre- 
siding otticer. These conspicuous instances establish that the 
Senate considers the Vice President's rights in that body to 
be Cotistifutional rights, which it cannot impair; though it 
may. under the delegated rule-making power, adopt any regu- 
lali'^ns consistent with the integrity of those rights. The se- 
cond example emphatically declares that the Vice-President's 
right on the subjf;ct of order is, in the opinion of the Senate, 
an inherent part of the presiding power vested in him by the 
People. 

The Constitution, the expression of the will of the People, 
is indeed, the foundation on which rest the authority of the 
Vice President, and that of every other functionary appointed 
by the People. Thoi'gh I investigated •' the rules and usages 
" of the Senate," and such parliamentary rules as formed a 
part of '' the law of proceedings in the Senate," the inquiry 
was prompted by no reliance on them as a criterion for decid- 
ing this controversy, but by a determination to confute you on 
your own principles. And perhaps to argue against such 
principles, is even •' more ridiculous" than to advance them. 
The allegation, that 1 sought in the House of Commons for 
the Vice-President's power of preserving order, is about as 
singular as your previous charge, that I " abandoned the rules 
" rtnd usages of the Senate," as the source of that power. 
Now I never did ascribe any such etHcacy to these " rules and 
'• usages ;" and how a position can be said to be " abandoned" 
which was never occupied, I am at a loss to conceive. Such a 
position would be as remarkable as the fortifications men- 
tioned in an official report of the Secretary of War, made in 
1817. This instructive document informs Congress, "that 
" the military establishment, as it now stands, is sulHciently 
" extensive to keep the fortifications iit a slate of preservation, 
" but is wholly inadcqualt to defend them against a regular at- 
" tack hj a force of sufficient strength and skill.^^ 

Anxious to retort the charges of trick and " subterfuf^e," 
which you h-id deservedly incurred, you accuse me of imitating, 
in a particular instance, these distinctive qualities of your rea- 
soning. If such had been my weapons, I should have sup- 



[ 39 ] 

pressed, in the passngc cited fiom the Debates of the Lords, 
the part which vou consider so hostile to my argument. Bnl I 
quoted the whole, in order that the public might place on it 
the proper interpretation, denying at the same time, for rea- 
sons then stated, that all the usages of the House of Lords, 
were lit subjects of introduction into the American Senate. 
I persevere in this doctrine; in a refusal to admit that th«!ir 
usages are as you describe them; and in the opinion that 
the cited act of the Lord Chancellor, as reported, may be 
fairly considered an interposition on his pait, against irrelative 
discussion. The circumstance of its occuring as introductory 
to a speech which, as a member of the House he had the right 
to pronounce, proves nothing more against this construction, 
than would be proved, if the interposition had been after the 
speech, or unconnectively with any speech. 

Aware of your obnoxiousness to such charges, you eagerly 
disclaimed any " wish to misstate my arguments in the slightest 
" degree," and promised that, " to avoid the possibility of mis- 
" representation," I should speak for myself. But the promise 
was scarcely made, before it was broken. In quoting several 
passages from my second letter, you suppress, in one of them, 
the cfause referring to the opinion, entertained by an indivi- 
dual who lately aspired to administer the Constitution and 
laws of the United States, that a domestic conspiracy is pro- 
perly cognizable under a law punishing spies and aliens. Sup- 
posing the suppression to have been made through courtesy 
to General Jackson, I excuse it. As the adopted heir of his 
political estate, you owe him some duty ; and it being beyond 
your power to render him any substantial service, you ought 
certainly to be attentive to at least the ceremonies of grati- 
tude. The fdcAs lately developed, concerning his conduct to 
Kentucky, to say nothi.ig of former clai.ns on the chivalry of 
his friends, invoke all their zeal to his defence: And by 
undertaking it, you may perhaps persuade the public, though 
nothing can'persuade yourself, that your loyalty to him is disin- 
terested. 

With a tenacity, almost indicating prophetic apprehension. 
YOU cling to the delusion that you are irrespon?ible ; and be- 
cause you fancy that the Lord Chancellor of Englaiul is al-o 
irresponsible, insist that the practice which you ascribe to the 
House ot Lords, is preferable to that of the House of Com- 
mons, or of the deliberative assemblies of our own country. 
Declining to repeat the argument against the imputed practice 
of the Lords, derived from their own high privileges, and the 
official character of their presiding oliicer, I ask, have you 
forgotten that, by Art. tl, Sec. 4, of the Constitution, the Vice- 
President may be removed from office on impeachment for, 



[ 40] 

ftnd conviction of," hiiih crimes and misdemeanours /" Or that 
by Art. I. S»c. 1 of the same iristrumeni. the Senate is cloth- 
ed with the " sole power" to try such impeachment ? As the 
StMiate would have co^ lizance of a hit^h misdemeanour C(»m- 
niitted by the Vice IVesident. in his capacity of its prcsidifig 
oflicer, he cannot be snd to be " irresponsible" to the Se- 
nate even. In truth, you have, in your emulation of the 
Lord Chancellor, exaggerated his immunities. He is respon- 
sible, both as Lord Chancellor, and as a member of the House 
of Lords ; for his appointment to office, elevates him to the 
rank and privileges, if they had not descended to him from 
his ancestors, of a British Peer. 

To complete the picture of your conduct, I cited the cise 
of Mr. Dickerson, which proved your practice to be as incon- 
sistent as your doctrine had been shown to be unsound. In 
answer, you say that I have referred "' to stale and false ac- 
" counts :" " it is sufficient that Mr. D. has repelled the 
" charge of injustice," and that I " exhibit but a sorry and 
*' factious appearance in defending a Senator from oppression, 
" who is not conscious of any injustice having been inflicted." 
How far the accounts are '* stale and false,'' will, if the Edi- 
tor of the Journal comply with my request, appear in con- 
nexion with this letter, from a statement originally published 
in a print of the District ; a statement to which I expressly re- 
ferred, and which has never been refuted. It will be found to 
reduce you to the dilemma of surrendering some, at least, of 
either your moral or intellectual pretensions. As to Mr. Dick- 
erson's declarations they are immaterial to the question. He 
and Mr. Randolph, each committed an irregularity, though 
in unequal degrees. Expecting pardon from Mr. D's sympa- 
thy in your hostility to the Administration, you repressed 
him; but suffered [Jr. R. to proceed, at considerable length, 
because, as a libeller of the President and the Secretary of 
State, he was endeared to you ; and lest obeying no fixed rules 
of conduct, he might, if irritated by control, make some parts 
ofyoui own history the subject of a Philippick. You were ready 
to '* give a cake to Cerberus." The oliermg was, however, 
fruitless; for tne insinuation that he was your parii>an, roused 
Mr. Randolph to a disclaimer. Even the smooth Mr. Dick- 
erson became impatient under this reproach; and though ac- 
quitting you of injustice to himself, (which, indeed, was not 
committed except in your contrasted treatment of Mr. Ran- 
dolph,) he denied, in a few days afterward, that •' he belongs 
" to your school." But while exculpating you for calling him 
to order, he says nnthiiiu of the true subject of censure, your 
toleration of Mr. Randolph's greater irregularity. On this 
point he is both '' mute and silent ;" for though, from common 



[ 4r J 

pru<1eiice, unwilling; to fight niulrr a shattered banner agaitist 
the Adminislratioii, he syu.pathized wilh }ou a^ a Guerrilla 
chief engaged, lik<; hiinstll", in that warlare. It is strange 
that vou should sju^p'it n>e of " defending a Setiator from 
" op|)re>sion," wh^-n I am mere!}' using his ca?.e, to add, in 
your own, the proof of inconsistency to that of othcial mis- 
conduct. 

Among the most material propositions established by the 
foregoing arguments, are the following, viz: Isi. That the 
power ui'.d dutv of preserving order are consiitutionally at- 
tached to the ofiice of President of the Senate, by the Peo- 
ple who created that othce. 2iid. 'I'hat the Senate, whatever 
else il may do under the clause of the Constitution, aiitluoriz- 
ing it " to determine the rules of its proceeding-^," cannot de- 
vest its presiding othcer of this power, nor exempt him from 
this duly. 3rd. That the Senate has never attempted to d& 
so. but, on the contrary, has borne testimony to the Constitu- 
tional character of that officer. 

A doctrine which characterizes the Vice-President as the 
creature of the People, and of course responsible to them for 
his conduct, and which denies to the Senate, another creature 
of the People, the power uf aristocratically encroaching on 
their rights, is described by you as "■ dmgerous to liberty ;" 
as being '• in contlict with the just principles of our govepn- 
" ment;" as vesting " in the Vice President alone, an inde- 
/" pendent and absolute power, that wouhl draw into the vor- 
" tex of his authority an unlimited control over the freedom 
" of debate." From this flagrant perversion of the doctrine, 
you deduce some portentous results. '■ Mark," you say, " the 
" consequences! If the Vice President siiould belong to the 
" same party or interest which brought the President into pow- 
" er, cr if he be dependent on him for his political standing or 
" advancement, yoii will virlually plact the control over the 
^^ freedom of debate in thf. hands of the Executive.'''' 

'' You thus introduce the President, as it were into the Cham- 
" ber oj the Smale, and place him virtually over the delihera- 
" lioii!^ of the body, Toithpozcem to restrain di.^cussion, and shield- 
" ins; his conduct from investigation. Let us. for instance, sup- 
" pose that the present Chiet Magistrate should be re elected, 
" and that the party which supports him should succeed, as in all 
'■^probability they would in that event, in electing also their 
" Vice-President, can it be doubled that the rules for the re- 
" straint of the freedom of debate in the Senale. which have 
" been insisted on openly by the party, during the last winter, 
" would be reduced to practice thiough a subservient Vice- 
'• President? And what are those rules ? Oiie of the leading 
•• ones, to advert to no other, is, that the conduct of the Exe- 



[42 J 

" cutive, as a co-ordinate branch of thai Government, canno 
" be called in question by a Senator in debate, at least, so far 
" as it relates to impeachable olFences ; and, of course, an at- 
*' tempt to dificuss the cond^ict of the President in such cases, 
*' ioould. be disorderly, and render the Senator liable to be pun- 
" ished, even to expulsion. What would be the consequence ? 
" The Senate would speedily sink into a body to register the 
" decrees of the President, and sins^ Ilosannas in his praise, 
" and be as degraded as the Roman Senate under Nero." 

It is, 1 admit, highly probable that you will not be re-elected, 
but I cannot apprehend from that event, any of the disasters 
which your mournful muse has predicted. So long as the Vice- 
President contents himself with discharging the duties of his 
station, the "freedom of debate" is in no danger; tlie power 
of preserving order, giving the olHcer invested with it no 
control over the '• freedom of debate," but being, on the con- 
trary, one of its strongest shields. Unreprcssed disorders do, 
indeed, endanger the " freedom of debate," since their ten- 
dency is so to disgust the S(N)ate, that it may eventually seek 
a remedy, l)y clothing its President with unlimited powers. 
Even nations have preferred despotism to anarchy. But it is 
at once the necessity and the settled purpose of your argu- 
ment, to confound the repression of disorder with a control 
over the "• freedom of debate :" And your last letter begins 
with a triumpliant annunciation of success in disproving " the 
" idea of nn inlierent right in the A^ice-President, indepen- 
*' dent of. and bi^yond the will of the Senate, to control the 
" freedom of debate f a proposition which 1 never asserted, 
and which has about as much relation to the question in con- 
troversy, as colors have to sound. The proposed rules which 
vou have endeavored to stigmatize, are, as to many of them, 
beneficial in their tendencj, and were introduced not by "the 
" party which supports the present Chief Magistrate," but by 
a member of the Opposition, whom you had permitted Mr. 
Randolph to revile. Instead of being insisted on "openly by 
" tho. oarty," they were not, as I remember, discussed, except 
by Mr. Randolph himself; and the sixth in the series, which 
you describe as so awful, is a mere suggestion, "to inquire 
" whether it is proper that a member should charge any olHcer 
" of the Government with an impeachable ofTence." 

The comparison of Mr. .Adams to Nero is, at least, ingeni- 
ous ; and considering your unconcealed hostility to him, is 
not surprising. But after all your protestations of reverence 
for the S(.M)ate, how came you to prophesy that, in addition to 
the humiliation? of last winter, it would descend to singing, as 
a mean of legisl/.tion / 

Let us now turn from the picture sketched by your imagina- 



[ 43] 

tion to one of which history is the painter. Should an indivi- 
dual, after soliciting the highest office in the gift of the People, 
retreat from the vain enterprise, and seek the next in dignity ; 
should he after obtaining the latter, egotistically tell the Peo- 
ple that he had declined the pursuit of the former, through 
zeal for their interests; should he consider the elevation he 
has gained only as a ladder to higher '• political standing and 
" advancement-," should he, in promoting that advancement, 
strive to render odious an Administration, of which the popu- 
larity would destroy his hopes, and be sedulous in conciliating 
its opponents ; should he so neglect the duties of his olfice as 
to permit disorders which it bound him to repress, because 
those disorders, though of the grossest nature, were connected 
with virulent personalities against the President and the Secre- 
tary of State, and proceeded from an orator of the Opposition 
whom he feared to otfend ; should he misuse the opportunities 
of that othce by organizing some arrangements in the Senate, 
so as to annoy the Administration in preparing its measures for 
legislative discussion ; should he after the Senate shall have 
sat longer than four months come out, under the impulsion of 
public censure, with a Jesuistical apology, atiecting the cou- 
rage of innocence, and the earnestne.s of conviction : Should 
such a state of thmgs exist, its consequences might be the 
triumph of anarchy over the most solemn of all deliberative 
assemblies, and the degradation of the American character ; 
consequences attended by a solitary consolation, arisin*' from 
the fate which his otfences would ensure to their author. 

You admit that many unpleasant circumstances arose from 
the desertion of constitutional and parliamentary duty, last 
winter, which you call your" independence of the will of the 
" Executive," and say that " most exaggerated and false ac- 
" counts" were " every where propagated, by hirelings of 
'• power, of the slightest occurrence in Uie Senate." Doubt- 
less, some circumstances were exaggerated ; for Fame is apt to 
exert her " inherent" property in this respect. But do you 
insinuate that some of the scenes most disgraceful to the Se- 
nate did not exist, substantially, as they were described in the 
newspapers of the day ? Another " officer of the Senate" has 
been more cautious ; for, in animadverting on the rumours of 
Mr. Randolph's potations, his denial goes only to number 
quantity, and variety, and not to the tact that this Senator^ 
•while speaking, used the Senate-house as a tavern bar. " Thou- 
" sands of instances might," you 'say, '- be cited" Aom the 
House of Representatives, the House of Comnions, and I sup- 
pose (for the passage is somewhat obscure) you mean from the 
House of Lords also, " instances in which all thai has been, 
" said orutttredby Mr. Randolph is nolhiii^, but in which the 



[44] 

" Speakerwaited for the interference ofsome of the members, 
** in order to preserve order." Although you shrink habitu-^lly 
from the " onus probandi," jet, thi« proposition being f^ffir- 
mative, you cannot refuse tlie challenr^e wliich 1 now make to 
you, of finding in tlie parhamentary history, either of England 
or of the United States, cases resembling Mr. Randolph's irre- 
gularities, during the last session of the Senate, in which the 
presiding officer did not interpose. 

You say that you " deserve praise ;" that you have "acted 
" in the spirit that ought to actuate every virtuous public 
'• functionarv ;" and that " you will r(!ceive the thanks of the 
•' country when the excitement of the day has passed away." 
j\!l this IS very consoling. But, Sir, you have not retiected 
tliat the period of your reward will never arrive; for what 
you call " the excitement of the day," is the deliberate, though 
indignant sentent-e which public opinion has pronounced on 
an otficer who forirot his sense of duty, and the character of 
his country, in a dream of hopeless ambition. 

PATRICK HENRY. 

NOTE TO LETTER IV. 

From the Kalional Journal, Saturday, Aitgusl 5, 1826. 
The following is ilie statement referred to in the precediog column, by Pat- 
rick Henry ; ami is repiiblisherl in compliance with his request. 

{From the Phenix Gazelle, of Alexandria, D. C. April 21, 1826.] 

The New York Gazette of Mdntlay last says that — " The Telegraph of 
" Washington, on the authority of Mr. Dickerson, of the Senate, contradicts the 
•' statement from the Alexandria Gazette that the President of that body (Mr. 
*' Calhoun) had prevented him from speaking on a question before the Senate, 
•' and permitted Mr. Randolph to speak twice.'''' 

There are two essential errors in the foregoing paragraph — one, of vital im- 
portance to the public — the otiier, material only to ourselves. 

A bare disclaimer will correct the last. We never said that Mr. Randolph 
was permitted to sp;aK lii:ice. The substance of our language was that Mr, 
DickiTson was lirict pit vented friim speaking, while Mr. Randolph was allowed 
to occii|)y the fl<ior for more than half an hour on the identical proposition. 
This we stiind to — nny, we can prove it, by all tlie Seuatc, and by all the Re- 
porters that were present. 

'J'he eirf r which wt- conceive to be important to the public, is simply this — 
The Gazette has, unfortunately, accredited a shallow subterfuge of the Tele- 
graph aci a cmitradiriioii of our statement. Now let the statement speak for 
iisell ; and let the stiblerfiiire be contrasted with it. 

{From the Phen'x Gazelle, of March 31, 1826.] 

*' The Resolutions proposing an amendmeMt to the Cnn.Ktitution as it respects 
" the numbt-r of terms for which any person ma}- be elected f^resident of the 
*' United States, having been read the third time, on the qtic^tion that it pass, 
*' Mr. KnnilDlph opposed it on the ground that he was opposed to all amendn)ents 
" of the C'oiistiiuti'ji) ; and onclndt-d by moving to la;/ it on the table. 

" Mr. l)ickeison lose to make some temaiks on the subject, but he was called 
" to Older by the Vici; rresioeiit, a motion to lai/ on the table precluding debate. 

" The motion being still pending, and sltll prtcladinir debate, Mr. Randolph 
" rose, and addressed the Senaie lor more than hall' an hour, on the resolution, 



[ 'i^] 



'.' and when he had finished, Mr. Dickeisoti f«g'a«>irnse,to mnke some observatians, 
" and was a^«t/4 leniiiuled l)y tlie Vice-Presidt-ul, lliat it wiis not in ord r to 
" speak, wliilf such a inoiioii was ponding. Mr. Oickosun accurdingly took hiti 
" seal, and ilie rejolulion was postponed till to-inoirow." 

[from the United Stales'' Telegraph, ^pril 13, 1826.] 

" A report has been going the rounds in some newspapers, founded upono 
" siutcnipnt in the K^hcuix Ci;izette, and a inisajjtuehontion dC the proceeding!, in 
** the !?onalu, in whicli iMr. Calhoun is ciiarged with having sihiwed Mr. lian- 
•• dolph to speak lo a motion, and refused IVIr. Dickerson, ol Wew-Jerfcey, the 
" rif^lii to leply. We have the authority of ihe latter gentleman to correct this 
" statement. So far from feeling himself aggrieved by the conduct of the 
" ^'ice-l'resident, on the occasion relerrcd to, he tliinks it was coireci, delicate 
" and rcf[)ectful." 

The *' statement in the Phenix Gazette" is no more than a simple relation of 
facts; and we beg that these facts niaj' l)e well understood. Mr. Kandnlph 
moved to lay the resolution on tlie table. Mr. Dickerson being opposed to that 
course, roje to object to it, and while proceeding with his objections, the Vice- 
President interrupted him, and declared that a motion " to lay on the table" 
precluded debate Mr. Dickerson sat down — Mr. Randolph then rose, and after 
assigning a reason for moving to lay the resolution on the table, Cbut without 
withdrawing that motion,) spoUe to liie meiits of the resolution for niore than 
half an hour ; concluding with the declaration, that if the question was pressed, 
(that is, if the Senate refused to lay the resolution on the table,) he would vote 
against it. Mr. Dickerson again rose, and attempted to speak, but wrs again 
interrupted by the Vice-President, and reminded, that, pending the motion to 
lay the resolution on the table, no debate was admissible Mr. Dickerson then 
rciiuesti'ti Mr. Randolph to vary his motion so as to postpone the resolution, in- 
stead of laying it on the table. Mr. Randolph did vary his motion, and the 
resolution was accordingly postponed. Can facts be more clearly stated? 

But mark the language ot the Telegraph — '* Mr. Calhoun is charged with 
'• having allowed Mr. Randolph to speak to a motion, and refused Mr. Uicker- 
" son of iVew-Jersey the right to reply'' — yes, the right. Now, we have brought 
no such charge against Mr. Calhoun. We were fully aware that iVlr. Dicker- 
son had no •'right'' either " to reply," or to speak upon the motion in the 
first instance ; because, that motion was — to lay a resolution on the tabic. The 
Vice-President therefore was entirely correct, as regards Mr. Diclitrson. But 
how st-;nds the matter as regards Mr. Randolph? 'I'here lies the rub. If Mr. 
Dickerson was out of order, (and he certainly was,) Mr. Randolph was out of 
order; for when Mr. Randolph spoke, ihe same barrier existed, that stood in 
the way of Mr. Dickerson, both in the first and in the last instance. Will that 
he denied.'' Can it be denied.' No — Wedaie the minions of Mr. Calhoun to 
hazard a refutation of that sjiccial thorny fact. That fact we make the/n^c/u/« 
ol our lever; and could Archimedes have found one-half so solid, he would have 
dragged worlds from their orbits with as much ease as wc have discomfited the 
Senate faction. 

But the Tele;;raph says, that it h.iF the auiliority of Mr. Dickerson to contra- 
dict our statement : and, alludinjj lo thai nontlLMi.an, ad Is — " So far from feel- 
*• ii.g himstlf aggrieitd by the nonducl of the Vice ['resident, ou the ociasioa 
" referred to, he thinks that it was corre.it, DKI.icatk :ind res/ieelful.''^ Does ihis 
declaration '■'■ cnnlradicl'" om' statement.' — tar iVom it We have already ad- 
njiiied that Mr. Dickerson was not individually " aggrieved ;'''' and we have ad- 
milted, too, that, in the case of .Mr. Dirkcrson, the cuiidurtof the Vire-Picsi- 
rient was " comet.'''' We do not even <!eiiy that it was " reynrtfiU,^'' ior wn 
know that Mr. Calhoun possesses th(! suarilir in modo to an uiiiivalled extent ; 
and believing liim to be ^'correct'''' in railing Mr. Dickerson to order, we never 
could doubt that he did it respectfully. 

But iiidependeiit of his condui:t being " correcf" and ^'- respectful— M seems 

that it was " DELICATE.'' Why delicate.' How came delicacy involved in 

the matter.' Had his u/io/t conduct been correct and respectful, there could have 

been neither delicacv nor indelicacy. We do not lejuc; the position, however: 

7 



t 46 ] 

The truth ic, that th« word wns veraciously, though unhappily applied>-there 
frof a delicacy an i a very embarranting one, in permitting Mr. Randolph to 
tpeak after Mr. Dirkeison had been set down; and yet a more embarrassing; 
one, in denying Mr Dickerson the floor alter it had been tamely and '^ deli- 
caUly'''' sllowed to Mr. Randolph. 

Mr. Dickerson's declaration, then, and our "statement," so far from being 
eontrarient, run directly all-fours. Such, however, was not the ostensible de- 
«ign^ either of the cringing Senator or the mercenary Editor. Doubtful of the 
eff ct of a dov/nrij^hl falsehood, they trusted to a sophistical denial, which they 
foolishly thought would answef the same purpose, while it promised the further 
advantage of securing a retreat, should thfir kennel be invaded Bribery and 
corruption can do much — but unless truth has who41y lost her influence, we will 
bnffle their schemes, or peiish in their mire. 

By a recuirence to the extract which we have made from our original state- 
ment, it will be perceived that it bears date the 3lst of March. — The " Contra- 
diction^^ 6\d not make its appearance until the thirteenth of the present month — 
Fourteen days of confusion aiifi irresolution elapsed before the niorftw operandi 
was agreed upon. In the mean time the Vice-President writhed — Mr. Ran- 
fiolph abused us — their retainers in the other House stared at us as we pabsed 
them, and railed at us in their speeches — their shake-bag, from St. Louis, was 
commissioned to feel the pulses of the reporters who had sustained our state- 
ment — and the Secretary of Slate was gravely accused, by the fnetionaries of 
both Houses, of having nctually bought us into his service ! But notv^ithstanding 
all this, the Telegraph maintained its silence for fourtfendays. Th^n came the 
miserable attempt at refutation, which we have just exposed. 

There is one other circumstance, which it is proper that we should notice. 
The Telegraph commences «ts " conlreidi.cthn^'' in these words : " A report has 
*' been going the rounds in some newspapers, founded upon a statement in the 
" Phenix Gazette, and a misapprehension of the proceedings in the Senate.'* 
It is true that many papers copied the statement from ours; but others copied 
similar ones from the Intelligencer and from the Journal ; yet we hear no complaint 
against them. And why.' Because this being a comparatively obscure print, 
it was deemed an easy mntter to prejudice the public mind against its integrity; 
and because to name the Intelligencer and the Journal in connexion with the 
aflhir, would be directing the people to an irresistible corroboration of our en- 
tire statement. Let us see, then, what these papers say on the subject. 

\_From the Xalionul luleiltge?icer, March 3\st 1826 ] 
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITU PION. 

The engrossed joint resolution proposing to amend the Constitution of the 
United States so as to render any person ineligible for the Presidency after a 
second term, was read the third time, and the rjucsiion stated on its passage. 

Mr. Randolph said he hoped he .«hoi)ld ni<t be called on to vote on the resolu- 
tion now, for if so, he should be obliged to vote against it. He was opposed to 
all amendments of the Constitution, of every sort and kind, and he hoped he 
should not be called on now, to vote on this. He would vote to restore the 
Constitution to what it was, becaiis.;, in stopfiing up one hole we made two. 
Ho should therefore move to lay th.e resolution on the table, at least till to- 
mori'ov/. 

Mr. DiCRERSOK ohj.cted to laying the resolution on the tabia, unless the 
gentleman from Virjp.iiiii wnnied liine to examine into its merits — and was about 
to -idd some remarks when ho was leminded by the Chair, thai the motion now 
pending, to lay the resolution on the table, did not admit of debate, and Mr 
D. took his scat. 

Mr. Randolph then rose and said : I will tell the gentleman at once — it is 
unreasonable, after having spoken an hour and thirty-five minutes, to speak 
again lo-day — 1 will tell him at once in my plain, old fashioned, outiight, 
downright, and I hope iipiit;lit maiiiici, that I am against all anieiidiiients to the 
Constitution. I believe the Conttituiion better now, than it would be with this 
amendment. 



w 



[ 47 ] 



[TTien followt the rest of Mr. Randolph's ipeech.} 

Mr. DiCICERSoN again rose, but, it not being in order It debate the que$lio», 
be reqiii^stprl Mr. R. to vary liis motion to a post|ionerneni until to inurrow ; 
which Mr. R. assented to; and the resolution wan accordingly postpon«d until 
to-morrow. 

[From the National Journal, March 31«r, 1826.) 

AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

The resolution proposing an amenHincnt to the Constitution as it resppcts the 
periods to which any person may be elected President oif tlis United Status^ 
having been read the third time — 

Mr Randolph spoke against it, on the ground that he was opposed to all 
amendments of the Constitution, and concluded by moving to lay the resolution 
on the table. 

Mr DicKERSON rose to make some observations, but was reminded by the 
Vice-President, that 07i this motion there could bf no debate 

Mr. Randolph then addressed the Senate for about half Hn hour, after which, 
Mr. DiCKERSON, again rising, was again reminded that it was not in order to 
discii&s It. 

The resolution was then laid on the table till to-morrow. The Senate then 
adjourned. 

Thus, it appearn, that on the very morning following the disgraceful transact 
tion in the Senate, the National Intelligencer, the National Journal, and this 
Gazette, all made statements of the transaction — and in every esfcentirtl parti- 
cular, these statements are found to agree — Can it be denied that this is good 
evidence — And what is opposed to it? Nothing — absolutely, nothing. 



LETTER V. 

\FTom the National Journal, Tuesday, .August Sth, 1826.] 

To the Honourable John C. Calhoun, Vice President of thi 

United Slates, 

Sir, 

There is a bathos in argument as well as in Rhetoric. 
After an elaborate apology for your official misconduct, partly 
derived from two isolated rules of the Senate, and Mr. Ran- 
dolph's assertion concerning the House of Lords, and partly 
dug from the rubbish of school metaphysics, you suddenly de- 
scend to another topic of vindication, which may well surprise 
the most accomplished proticient in the Art of Sinking. The 
lofty common places of " freedom of debate," " the rights of 
" the Senate,'' el id gmus omne, are deserted ; the " virtue and 
" patriotism," the " moderation," the "courtesy, promptness 
»' and intelligence" of the Vice President, his " indefatigable 
•' discharge of his duty," and his self denying maxims, carried 
80 far that he is almost, he fears, too amiable ; are all forsot- 
ten, and the public are told, in substance, that Mr. Randolph's 
irregularities ought not to have been repressed becauie he had 



[48] 

from prescription the right of violating order, and of tram-- 
phiigs a chartered Thersites, on decency. " And who,'' you 
ask, " is Mr. Randolph? Is he, or his manners, a stranger in 
" our national councils ? For more than a quarter of a century 
*' he has been a member of Congress, and during the whole 
" time, his character has remained unchanged. Highly ta- 
" lented, eloquent, severe, and eccentric ; always wandering 
"from the question, but often uttering wisdom worthy of a 
♦' Bacon, and wit that would not discredit a Sheridan, every 
" Speaker had freely indulged him in his peculiar manner, 
" and that without responsibility or censure, and none more 
" freely than the present Secretary of State, while he pre- 
" sided in the House of Representatives. He is elected, with 
" a knowledge of all this, by the ancient and renowned Com- 
" monwealth of Virginia, and takes hi=5 seat in the Senate. 
" An immediate out-cry is made against the Vice-President 
" for permiting him, who had been so long permitted, by so 
"many Speakers, in his usual freedom ol discussion ; though 
" in no respects were his attacks on the Administration freer 
" than what they had been on those of Mr. Jeflerson, Mr. 
" Madison, and Mr. Monroe." 

After your learned treatises in favour of anarchy, this appeal 
seems as clumsiy, as its reasons are futile, and its assumption of 
facts is gratuitous. What is said of Mr. Randolph's mental 
character, of the length of his political life, and of his partly 
representing, at present, the sovereignty of the illustrious 
State of Virginia, is true : But it is not true that his '■'■peculiar 
" manner'''' had ever been carried in the House of Represen- 
tatives to the extent which it reached in the Senate, nor that 
" in no respect were his attacks on the Administration freer 
" than what they had been on those of Mr. JelFerson, Mr. 
" Madison, and Mr. Monroe." And here, it may be again 
renarked, that it is not true either, that I ever contended you 
ought to have checked Mr. Randolph when he made " free 
" attacks" on the Administration, though you and your subal- 
terns industriously strive so to misrepresent me to the public. 
So far from being guilty of this political absurdity, as it must 
appear to all, whose sympathies are not on the aristocratic 
" side of our institutions," 1 expressly asserted the right of 
every member of either House, to assail any Administration. 
Such a right is, indeed, essential to popular liberty, for it is 
essential to that freedom of debate, which a desperate cause 
has obliged you to confound with the disorder of debate. But 
is it a part of the freedom of debate, that a Senator should 
apeak for months without ever, scarcely, touching the subject 
before the Senate ? That he should indulge in gross personali- 
tie« not only aj^ainst individuals, who were not in Cougfess, 



[ 49 j 

but aj^aini't members of the other House, and of the Senate 
itself? Tliat he should waste the time and money of the na- 
tion in the recital of his adventures, and in the ethision of his 
resentments ? That in his reckless misanthropy he should libel 
both the living and the dead, and waken, on the cheek of in- 
nocence and loveliness, the blush of otfended modesty ? That 
he should complete this anticlimax of Senatorial dignity by 
coarse physical excesses, ostentatiously practised in the very 
forum whither he was deputed to perform the most solemn 
duties known to the Constitution ! Had these, and other out- 
rages, fresh in the memory of many, any connexion with the 
" freedom of debate ?" If you really perceive such a con- 
nexion, there is good reason for your fear of not being re- 
elected : for, in addition to the present doubts of your since- 
rity, your discernment would then become a subject of grave, 
perhaps ominous inquiry, with the People. 

Trust not too fondly to what you consider the acquiescence 
of the Senate, in your toleration of these licentious transgres- 
sions against its own dignity, and against the public weal. It 
is well understood by the People that a majority of thatbodv, 
remembering the past days of its fame, and feeling its present 
degradation, were willing, boih " in sorrow and in anger," that 
you should be tried at once by that tribunal which is supreme 
on earth — public opinion. And bi/ it you have been judged. 
There may, indeed, have been some Senators, who like your- 
self, were not displeased with any indecorum, provided it 
was connected with abuse of the Administration. If so, thej 
certainly deserve to divide with you the honour of having in 
a single Session changed the character of a deliberative assem- 
bly, that for thirty-seven years, most of which were coexis- 
tent with high political excitement, had maintained a prover- 
bial reputation for dignilied impartiality in its presiding olh- 
cers, and more than Roman gravity among its members. Now, 
indeed, is a sad reverse. Like the once powerful word of 
Cse^ar, the glory of the Senate now lies low, and there ie 
" none so poor to do it reverence." 

You act wisely in sheltering yourself, whenever practicable, 
under the authority of the last Speaker of the House of Repre- 
sentatives. But unhappily for both your argument and your 
facts, Mr. Clay however indulgent to Mr. Randolph's " pecu- 
" liar manner," never sulFered him to commit disorder with 
impunity. Indeed neither Mr. Randolph nor any other mem- 
ber of the House of Representatives, ever attempted, while 
that otScer presided over it, any such irregularities as you 
have approved ; for, as it was known that the Speaker never 
forgot, in the hope of higher honours, the obligation of exist- 
ing duties, his owh dignity w^as a full security for the dignity 
of the HeHae. 



[ 50] 

Though the appeal to precedents and the rest of your apo)o« 
gy fiave been received by the pubhc with dismaying incredu- 
lity, that apoloiiy seems to have entirely satisfied yourself. In- 
cited by the vanity which prompted your ludicrous anmincia- 
tioii of a victory over common sense and the Constitution, yoa 
applaud some of your official acts, unconnected with the sub- 
ject of ordt»r, which a discreet partisan would have shrunk 
from the Quixotism of attempting even to palliate. Among 
the most conspicuous of these, was your " appointment of 
*' trie Standing Committees." under the influence, I alleged, 
of " selfish considerations." You alfect to consider this 
charge as referring to only one of those committees, but have 
unfortunately designated the committee on Foreign Relations, 
of which the composition is peculiarly indefensible. The se- 
lection of Messrs. Macon, Tazewell, Gaillard, White and Mills, 
as the constituents of that committee, was defended b^ your 
friends on the grounds, that at the next preceding session of 
the Senate, the committee on Foreign Relations were Messrs. 
Barbour, Jackson, Macon, Seymour, and Elliot ; that Governor 
Barbour having been subsequently called to the Department 
of War, and Gen<Tal Jackson having {as usual) resigned. Mr. 
Macon the next in order, was, " according to usage seldom 
*' departed from." made chairman of the new committee; 
that tor General Jackson, his successor in representing Ten- 
nessee, Judge White, was substituted, and Mr. Tazewell for 
his late colleague, Gov. Barbour ; That " Mr. Gaillard, who 
*' had not hf-.n on any committee last year, was appointed in 
" place of Mr. Elliot resigned, and Mr. Mills in place of Mr. 
*' Seymour, who was arranged on two other committees." 
Tliis defence was impugned, because, in regard to Mr. Macon, 
the asserted usage did not exist, the real usage extending no 
farther than that the committee, when the place of its chair- 
man became vacant, considered as Chairman the second origi- 
nally named on it : Because the reason adduced for Mr. 
Tazewell's location on the committee, ought, if valid, to have 
fnadt; him its chairman, Governor Barbour, bis colleague, hav- 
ing been chairman the year before : And because the exclu- 
sive geoe[raphical and succession principles, on which this 
vindication rested, were not only intrinsecally erroneous, but 
liiid not been consijJtently pursued. (See Kational Inlelligen' 
cer, Dtcember 30, 1 8"23, January 2, 4, 6, 1 826.) This was, un- 
doiibtecily, a succes^ful answer to your advocates, and manifest- 
ed tiie (utility of any attempt to explain away the speaking fact, 
♦hat on a highly important standing Committee, five Senators 
(the number of StMiators on everv sucli Committee) were 
pliiced.of whom two had voted against Mr. Clay's nomination 
to be Secretary of State ; a third was the successor and parti- 



[51 ] 

san of General Jackson ; and all, except one, were ascer- 
tained opponents of lUc Administration. The Committee 
was, therefore, selected on principles adverse lo the long es- 
tablished Parliamentary usage according to which, althougli 
abilities and experience form the first rule for coiifitiluting a 
Committee, another rule of equal validit) is, that a majority 
on the comnjiltee should be friendly to the measures expected 
to engage its delibt-rations. The reason of this rule is, that 
the Administration being required to devise plans for the pub- 
lic welfare, is entitled to every advantage arising from prelimi- 
nary discussion and illustration, before they are acted on by 
the Legislature. On diiferent principles, its policy would 
never be fairly understood by the People, for a hostile Com- 
mittee might, so far as would depend on it, strangle in their 
infancy the wisest and most patriotic suggestions. 'J'he Bri- 
tish Parliament has, therefore, adopted the usage of placing 
on Committees, men, not only of the most illustrious reputa- 
tions, but representing, as to a majority, at least, of those select- 
ed for each Committee, the views and policy of the Govern- 
ment. If this usage is sound ar^d reasonable in Parliament, 
where the Ministers of the Crown have seats, and consequent- 
ly an opportunity to illustrate and defend the measures which 
they introduce, it merits yet stricter observance in Congress, 
where no such privileges are extended to the Executive and 
his Cabinet. Until your factious innovations, it had been 
uniformly respected, both in the Senate and the House of Re- 
presentatives, and by no presiding officer of either House 
more than by Mr. Clay. It is well known that this gentleman, 
while Speaker of the House of Representatives, dissented 
from the policy in regard to some questions of internal im- 
provement, and the recognition of South American Indepen- 
dence, which, at one period, marked the administration of Pre- 
sident Monroe ; subjects on which the opinions of the latter 
underwent, before his retirement from otFice, a change as 
honourable to his own candour, as it was to Mr. Clay's early 
and sagacious perception of the true policy of the country on 
those important questions. While the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives wis thus in a qjiasi opposition to the Ad- 
ministration, he, nevertheless, appointed the Committees of 
that body in exact accordance with the rule which you have 
so conspicuously violated. They consisted of men of talents 
and experience, selected with a proper, and therefore not ex- 
clusive, regard to sectional considerations, and with such a 
reference to political opinions, as gave a numerical prepon- 
derance to the friends of measures, the submission of which 
to the Legislature was expected. At a later period, while 
you were, Dominally at least, a candidate for the Presidency. 



[62] 

tlie Speaker, though your competitor, instead of using for 
your annoyance, the 0[)portunities atl'orded by his slation, 
showed his respect for reason and custom, by taking the majo- 
rity on every Mihtary Committee from among the advocates 
of the pohcy approved by the War Deparltnent, and often 
from the circle of your personal friends. At the last session 
of his Presidency over the House, he appointed as Chairman 
of the Committee on Military Alfairs, Mr. Hamilton, of South- 
Carolina, who, until your amusing retreat before General 
Jackson, and coalition with his party, had been your adhe- 
rent, and still remained your intimate. 

At length, sir, the time arrived when you had occasion to 
determine whether this example merited imitation. And 
though no man could attribute to you the magnanimity which 
inspired it, everv man hoped that a respect, however cold, 
for public opinion, would persuade you to repel political machi- 
nation from any communion with the high otiice you had gain- 
ed. With an alacrity, for which you claimed credit, but which 
is now easily accounted for, you met the Senate on the tirst 
day of its Session ; knowing that, in consequence of Vice- 
President Tompkins' irregular attendance, the duties of the 
chair had devolved on a President pro tempore, whom the 
Senate had clothed with certain powers, especially the power 
of appointing Standing Committees, which would probably be 
withdrawn. Preventing by the promptitude of your arrival, 
arrangements which would have been made more agreeably 
to the Senate during your absence, you took the President's 
chair, and in discharging its duties were, according to your 
own account, " indcfatigi'ble, prompt, and intelligent." That 
you had been '' indefatigable" in endeavours to discover the 
political opinions and passions of each individual in the body 
over which you came to preside, all " acknowledge ;" and 
if, in any material instance, you remained ignorant, you were 
less successful than many whose pursuit of information had 
been less diligent. At the meeting of the Nineteenth Con- 
uress, it was palpable to the most cursory observer, that much 
of the talent of the Senate, and more of its passions, would 
be araayed against the existing Administration : That for the 
iirst time in this country, the expeihnent vould be tried of an 
opposition to men, without regard to measures : That some 
ground would be immediately chosen, on which exacerbated 
feelings, and baliled political speculations were to encamp : 
That some organizing principle would be applied to the Chaos of 
heterogeneous factions, and conlliciing interests : And, in con- 
sequence of \\\v. peculiar condition of the world, e.»pecially 
the yet nnlixed lelalions between Europe and South America, 
and the eiiecl of their adjustment on the United States, that 



[53] 

some important suggestions of fon^igu policy miist proceed 
from the Exptutivf" ; which. 7ohate-i.er imghl ht ifuir character, 
would l)e selected as a rallying point tor (he prcdeliirmiotd 
opposition. Such expectntions were universal, and so unre- 
servedly expressed, that it rejuired no wizard"'* wand to de- 
signate the position which almost every Senator would as- 
sucne. 

In this crisis of novelty and anxiety, what would have been 
th conduct of a friend of hu countr) who had been elevated 
to ihe second dignity in the gift of the Fi opie ? If he had 
Oppose(i those pretensions to ih'^ Pre^idenc}' which tin ally pre- 
vailed, he would, nevertheless, have said, with the man whom 
you so rancorously persecuted, '• let the AdminiyI ration be 
"judged by its mt-asures." and have involved in no unnecessa- 
ry preliminary embarrassment, measures >ubmitted by the Pre- 
sident for legislative examination. Such would have b. en a pa- 
triot's course ; but it was not yours. The Vice Presid>^nl of the 
United States, sent by the People to preside over the Senate, 
took the chair of office, after the Senate had, under temporary 
circumstances, added to its Constitutional ch tracter the power 
of appointing the Standing Committees. If the selection of 
the Committee on Foreign Relations, on the principle of ena- 
bling the Administration to develop, fully and fairly, its foreigo 
policy, seemed to your perverse understanding, a leaning " oq 
" the side of power," you ought at least to have avoided the 
odium which you incurred by seekiitg this Committee, almost 
exclusively, in the rai.ks of Opposition. Yet, entirely aware 
that the sentiments of one only of the five Senators whom yoii 
preferred, were favourable to the Administration whose mea- 
sures would form the subject of their Report ; that two had 
opposed the nomination, to the principal seat in the cabinet, 
of a citizen whose fitness for it was unquestionable, and not 
questioned by themselves even, and had thus indicated that 
settled hostility to men, which would make highly improb.ible a 
candid treatment ot their measures ; aware that two others re- 
presented States which had preferred, and were alleged to 
prefer still, a rejected candidate for the Presidency, whose 
disappointment, and that of his partisans, were severe and 
vindictive; aware that of these Senators, one was supposed 
to sympathize warmly in this sentiment, and the other not to 
dissent from it: Estimating all these particulars, you notwith- 
standing organized a Committee which, from its very elements, 
would, you well knew, fasten on the slightest pretext of thwai t- 
ing the attempt of the Administration to mature its measures 
for the consid'^raiion of the Senate. y\nd what now is Onslow'' s 
apology? Why, "that the venerable and patriotic Macon, 
" was placed at the head of the Committee." who has since 
8 



[54 1 

keen chosrn " President pro tem." of the Scnrite. Surelj, 
Sir,'co(n;uon respect for tlio feelin»^s of this pHtrmrchal Sena- 
tor, ouiiht to have deU'.rred you from the insinuation, which 
even he must suspect of bitter irony, that he was qualitied, by 
eiOier abilities or kiioivledgw, for the chair in which you placed 
liifn. Eiitertaining for him the veneration that ■igc. integrity, 
and long continued endeavours to serve the pubhc, alwavs 
procure, ev^.n when united with a narrowness of mind which 
eda»:ation cannot enlarge, and covered by an incrustation of 
prejudices which experience cannot remove, I will not igree 
that you should elude reproach, bv exposing him to ridicule. 
In appointing the Committee on Foreign Relations, you per- 
fectly knew that Mr. IMacon's labours in it would seldom ex- 
ceed an acclamatory concurrence in such proceedings as ani- 
mosity to the Administration might stnnulate it to adopt. Who 
penned the Report on thi Panama Mission ? Was it the 
" venerable and patriotic" chairman? No! it was a member 
of the Commiitee, whose hatred of the President and the 
Secretary of State had been avowed ; whose abilities were, 
io'leed, of a high order, but for nothing more remarkable than 
for the f^icuity of obscuring the distinction between truth and 
error; wiiose moral sense was so perverted as to estimate 
discu-5sioiis on the weightiest national concerns, only as com- 
b;\ts of intellectual asjihty; and who wa* therefore earnest in 
proportion as he was wrong. To a man of these prejudices 
and habitudes, was committed the trust of reporting on an 
important recommeidation. issuing from an Executive who 
had come into office under circumstances entitling him to 
candid, if not liberal, treatment, from his adversaries. What 
was the result? A measure, of which I shall now say only 
that it vv;is emphatically popular, was subjected to the opera- 
tions of a practised sophist, who delighted as much in tortur- 
ing truth as an angler in empaling a worm, and then offered 
to the Senate under all the odium with which a one-sided and 
ingenious analvsis could oppress it. This result, you must, 
unless wilfully blind, have foreseen; and, therefore, in so or- 
ganizing the Commiitee as to produce it, you intended, on 
every rule of induction with which I am acquainted, to tram- 
mel unfairly the Administration, and by renderuig it, if possi- 
ble, unpopular r limine, to promote the seilish designs which 
I have ascribed to )ou. 

But, Sir, the Committee on Foreign Relations is not the 
only one, though it has been convenient for you so to re[)re- 
sent the accusation, in appointing which, I charged you with 
impropriety. To say nofhing of your omitting Mr. Lloyd, of 
M^-»achusett8, from the Naval Committee, of which he had, 
to the complete satisfaction of the public, been previously 



f 55] 

Chairman; and of the substitution for him of Mr. ITayne, of 
South Carohiia, a z<'alous partisan of thr O|»po>itioii ; — You 
placed on 'he Commitiec of Finance. Messrs. Smith, Berrien, 
Holmes, Havne, (again.) and Woodhury, ot whom four wer« 
also of that political description: On the Committee on In- 
dian Affairs, to which the delicate subject «)f the Geortfia 
treaty would of course be referred, Messrs. B» nton, White, 
K'lig. Edwards, and Col^b ; of whom Mr. Edwardd on!) was 
friendly to the Administration; the remaining four were it« 
decided adversaries, and of these one was the Chairman, who 
had solemnly exchanged his hatred of General Ja( kson, for 
a hatred of tli' Administraiion equail) deadly, but less venial, 
because it sprusig, not from a generous resentment, but from 
the calculating spirit of parly. 1 he Judiciay Connnittee was 
Com[)o.--ed of Messrs. Van Buren, Holmes. Rowan. Be.iri« n 
(again) and Mills, and contained only one Senator, a gejitleman, 
I admit With pleasure, of eminent abilities, who whs not de- 
cided in Opposition. The Chairman might. y<Mi knew, be 
safely ridnd on, when a reconunendatiou of the Executive 
was intangible by argument, to assail it with all the subtlety 
and science of an educated [)ohtical j'Jggh?r. 

It thus appears that on each of four highly important stand- 
ing committees, namely, those on Fortign Rdalions, Finance^ 
Indian, Affairs, and tht Judiciary, you placed only a si-gle Sena- 
tor who was not hostile to the Administration. Could this 
have been chance, or were " all the talents," experience and 
virtue of the Senate in the ranks of the amalgamation party ? 
The htter supposition is not more obviously against fact, than 
the former is against probability. If any man tiien can sin- 
cerely beheve that with a previous knowledge of the opinions 
and feelings of the Senators, you placed these connniltees in 
the hands of the Opposition, and yet deserve the eulogy which 
you have pronounced on yourself, such a man is one, who. in 
the language of the historian, '* must be considered as beyond 
*' the reach of argument or reason, and be left to liis preju- 
dices." 

I believe. Sir, you will now i.icline to retract your asser- 
tion, that 1 deal in " a prohision of vague charges," •' with- 
" out a single specification." If. how«^ver, your appetite for 
specifications is still uiisatished, I will, whenever it may be 
agreeable to you, proceed to analyze some other of the thir- 
teen sJtandiiig Committees of the Senate, appointed at its 
last session. 

The frequency with which you have, directly or indirectly, 
introduced into this controversy, the present Secrefarv of 
State, induces me to remind you of a passage of his life, which 
occurred whiie he presided over the House of Representatives, 



[ 56 3 

and has, pprhaps, faded from your memory. It is a welt 
known Auecdut' of the Metropolis, that wh«n the quairc! be- 
tween Mr. Gro venor und yours-elf, in the House of Represen- 
taMves, had nearly rt suited in a duel, the arrani^erjuMits for it 
were oommMnu ated to the Speaker tn his retirement, by a 
learned gentleman, indifferent to both parties, who desired 
hi? official iitterference. RefiHing f)r obvious rf^asons, tbis 
specie^of interposition. Mr. Clay, however, voinntoeted his 
friendly 'ffjits at a [)aciticatioi), and succeeded just in time to 
avert extremities. This benevolent agency detained him from 
the Speaker's cbair for an hour or two after the House had 
assemblf;d ; an ab-;ence from duty, which is conf^picuous in 
h^s official life. Under circumstances not entirely dissimilar, 
how, >ir, did you act? A Senator, in his place, while ad- 
dressing you as the President of the Senate, attacked, with 
libellous and brutal personality, the private c|jaracter of Mr. 
Clay. But considering falsehood and calumny,' when directed 
against those to whom yfu had made yourself a political ene- 
my, as being incident to the "freedom of debate," >ou per- 
mitted them, without rebuke, to be uttered, and Mr. Clay, 
finding his honfuf- uHsate in the Senate, resorted to the held 
to protect it. ^^^^Ifi though I never " most wantoni} and 
'> gratuitously JB«HnBpiie Vice President, as the instigator ot 
" the duel betw^n^^ Handolph and Mr. Clay," I certainly 
have always thouj^iit, in common with every man, that this 
event would never have occurred, if the y ice President had 
discharged his duty of calling Mr. Randolph to order, whea 
be transgressed it',, No one who knew you, was indeed wild 
enough, to expect that Mr. Clai's forme? friendliness would 
have animated your s^nse of official obligation with any of 
the emotions, which spring up spontaneously in a generous 
bosom : But you might, consistently with even your charac- 
ter, have tbrborne to countenance your Swiss underlings im 
their silly falsehood, that Mr. Clay challenged Mr. Randolph) 
because the latter had assailed his political conduct. 

Though your letters have afiuirded me but little instruction, 
a pa-sage in one of them amused me so agrcjeabiy, that I must 
thank }ou for the sensation. Your second "able vindication 
of the freedom of debate," has left me, you say, **■ without 
the possibility of escape." If you really fancy, Str, that such 
a measure was at any time within my contemplation, you 
must think that never were means so unpropitious to an es- 
cape, as those which 1 adopted. I followed you into the la- 
brynths of sophistry, and into the concealments of ambition, 
with a zeal which would certainl} have been greater, if I had 
coasidtifcd your abilities to be as formidable as ynur principles. 

PATRICK llLiNRY. 



I o A_ in 



